How Many Lies Would You Tell
In a post about the passage of Prop 8 in California and how both sides attempted to use Barack Obama to champion their message, Ann Althouse makes the following statement:
...he himself is an opponent of same-sex marriage... except to the extent that he isn't, and I certainly think in his heart he's not, but that in his head he knew he had to say he was to get elected. I don't blame him for this dishonesty. I think it's like the dishonesty of professing a belief in God if you don't have it. You're not going to get elected without that dishonesty, so we can just forget about all the good people who don't lie about such things. They're not going to make it to the presidency. Not in the near future anyway...
Leaving aside her ability to know what's inside Obama's heart for the moment, I'm somewhat flabbergasted at her comfort level with dishonesty in a Presidential candidate. If I felt as she did - that he's really not an opponent of gay marriage despite what he's said - my reaction wouldn't be "well, that's okay, he just had to say that to get elected". My reaction would be: what else is he lying about?
Now I understand that politicians will often say just about anything to get elected and that it's hard to wade through the bullshit without a shovel and a good pair of hip boots, but isn't there supposed to be a point where the artifice falls away and we finally get a glimpse of the real candidate, warts and all? Or is it all about seeing what we want to see?
Maybe the problem is me. Maybe I'm just naive enough to expect my President to be straight with me. Maybe somewhere along the way I was taught to expect more from my President than what he had to say to get elected. Does anyone have any doubt about how George W. Bush or Sarah Palin feel about gay marriage? Or for that matter, about anything? Ask them a question and you'll get an answer. You may not like or agree with the answer but you won't doubt its sincerity. Maybe that's why I respond to them and not Obama.
The irony here is that I'm not, despite what anyone might think, a social conservative. I have no problem with gay marriage and it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest if Prop 8 had failed. Obama, if he believes in gay marriage - which, at this point, is still just a supposition on Ann's part - would actually gain some props with me. But I don't know what Obama believes. About this and a great many other things. And in my head I understand that he - and Ann - might feel that this was just one of those things he has to say to get elected.
But in my heart I can't forget about all the good people who don't lie about such things. And I do blame him for his dishonesty.
posted by VermontGuy @ 6:08 AM
9 Comments:
Ronald reagan opposed draft registration in 1980 up and until he was inaugurated
Does anyone have any doubt about how George W. Bush or Sarah Palin feel about gay marriage? Or for that matter, about anything? Ask them a question and you'll get an answer. You may not like or agree with the answer but you won't doubt its sincerity.
{Raises hand} I doubt, I doubt! I think Palin is more than happy to lie when she thinks it is necessary. Remember that link you sent me where Palin "explained" how it wasn't that she was ignorant of civics, it was that she was peeved? I thought it instructive that your clip left out the part at the end, after she left, where the interviewer said that it seemed like she had gone home and done her homework after not knowing them last time. And she still lacks any concrete ideas.
I think determining what a politician believes is very complex (and ultimately a fruitless endeavor). The reason is on a nearly infinite number of issues, there is in every case a sliding scale of 1) how much the politician knows about the issue and 2) how much he or she cares about the issue.
So Vermont Guy, you are not a social issues consrvative (neither am I), but that doesn't mean you are a social issues liberal. It probably means you think we have bigger issues to deal with than who the state licenses to marry, or even how many women feel it necessary to have an abortion. There is only so much time in the day, so you will not put in as much effort learning about the issues you feel less important. And then, if pushed on such an issue, you may have to fall back on general knowledge, or even party platforms.
I don't think Obama gets fired up about gay rights issues. His advisors said to have a shot in states like North Carolina, you need at least to oppose attaching the word "marriage" to gay couples. Obama thinks to himself, yeah, sure, it isn't like my administration (or any adminsitration) is going to be reinstating anti-sodomy laws. To the person for whom this issue is critical, the difference between marriage and civil unions couldn;t be clearer, and it is a principled fight of huge importance. But not that many of these people were going to vote against Obama, and Obama didn;t see it as a huge issue (his own opinion is probably largely unformed - so he relies on his handlers).
I don't think this makes Obama an inveterate liar. But this also explains why in the end, the most important characteristic of any politician is his or her party affiliation. It is that party affiliation that will fill in inumerable blanks regarding where the politician stands on many many issues.
Agreed, DG. And you can take it one step further. I have a friend who was a congressional staffer. She told me that, oftentimes, if the party bosses weren't pushing an issue hard one way or the other, the congressman would decide which way to vote on a low-profile issue based on how many of his constituents bothered to write in for one side or the other. Snail mail got a lot higher weight than calls, which got higher weight than email. So, depending on how obscure your concern is, you can indeed affect the political process.
"higher weight"? Make that "more weight."
Well, yes and no. I understand that a politician has to wear (or may feel they have to wear) different hats in order to appeal to more than 100 million voters. But Palin and Bush run on their religious principles proudly, and it doesn't bother them that those principles may be seen by some as outdated, old fashioned or just plain wrong. They believe that their conviction in those principles will win enough people to their side.
Obama - and Dems in general - run their campaigns as though principles are malleable, that you can somehow twist or bend them so that in California you can appear pro-gay rights and in North Carolina you can seem pro traditional marriage. That's how you get the reaction from Ann Althouse - that even though Obama has declared himself a Christian and as such opposed to gay marriage, she still thinks that in his heart of hearts he doesn't believe such nonsense.
That may make for a more popular candidate but I think it bodes worse for a President in office. No one knows what Barack Obama's principles are or what he believes. No one knows what he will do - or already has done - to achieve and keep power.
But if someone came to Sarah Palin and told her she could be President tomorrow and all she had to do was change her vote on Prop 8, I already know what her answer would be.
if someone came to Sarah Palin and told her she could be President tomorrow and all she had to do was change her vote on Prop 8, I already know what her answer would be.
You "know" that about a woman you've never met or spoken to, and likely never heard of 6 months ago. Based on what? Her speeches and public biography? That's frighteningly umm, uncynical(?) of you, VG. I'd be curious to hear how you score on this test of Bill Clinton vs GW Bush regarding unconscious bias re honesty. I came out "inconclusive," presumably because I would trust neither of them -- nor almost any other politician -- to be more honest than rigorous oversight forces them to be.
Of course, none of us "know" any of these people. But based on what I do know about her, I feel comfortable making the statement. If you lead with your principles and then betray them, you get hosed. And if you're a Republican and you stick with your principles, you get hosed anyway.
Which is why no Democrat will do it. Assuming they have some principles to begin with, that is.
And that test you linked looks interesting. I'll try it when I get the chance and let you know.
I know too. She'd take the job.
Post a Comment
<< Home