promises, premises

Plenty of recent talk in the conservative blogosphere about this speech by Robert Reich.

This is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what candidates should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship, and they were educated in terms of what the issues were, and they could separate myth from reality, in terms of what candidates would tell them:

...If you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of  years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months -- it's too expensive. So we're going to let you die. [Applause -- the speech was given at UC Berkeley. Go figure.]

Of course, most of the attention being given to this excerpt is going to the second part, which pretty much substantiates everything the right's been saying about how the Democrats' healthcare plan works.

But I'm much more interested in the first part, where Reich basically says that politicians lie because voters are too ignorant to hear the truth.  Because if liberals believe this -- as I'm sure they do -- then it raises some interesting questions.

If candidates are supposed to lie, then why do we bother voting?  Just who are we supposed to be choosing -- the candidate with the best-sounding lies, or the one who's least dishonest?

And what's the point of "one man, one vote"?  Why is it so important to stuff buses full of voters and take them down to the polls, when it's a given that the candidates aren't going to deliver what they've promised anyway?  Is a citizen really any less disenfranchised by a candidate with no intention of doing what he campaigned to do, than if he were denied a vote altogether?

Liberals, in particular, ought to be asking themselves a lot of questions.

Comments

[Bob Jones, III ESQ]

Unfortunately, I think the vast majority (can't quite rationalize using the word ALL here) of politicians lie - regardless of their positions. I think that many people vote because of Civil obligation, but some vote because they buy into the lies. Whether buying into the "Change" line in 2008, or the "We're the only ones to keep you safe" line in 2004.

[John Galt]

Well, Bob, that's an interesting moral equivalancy argument you're making there. Let's look at it.

An interesting thing about lies is intent. If someone actually believes a statement, it could arguably be incorrect, but it can't be a lie.

And I'm thinking there are conservative politicians who actually believe they keep us safer than liberals. Do you have a better example of a "lie" from conservatives?

Anything, for example, along the lines of telling Americans that a healthcare rationing plan is something other than rationing? Because in the liberal example provided by Reich, I sense actual intent to deceive. Don't you?

Why do you find it important to establish that both sides are doing it, btw?

[Bob Jones, III ESQ]

I don't find it important to establish that both sides are doing it - I see that both sides are doing it, which is a large part of my frustration with the system.

Better examples from Conservatives, since you ask:

"Mission Accomplished"
"Weapons of Mass Destruction"

[John Galt]

More of the same, Bob. Examples of things which could easily have been incorrect without being lies at all. Simple (and honest) differences of opinion.

Do you have any examples of actual, deliberate deceit?

Can you show me any idea in conservative doctrine where politicians might suggest (even if only among themselves) that the electorate is "too ignorant" for truthfulness?

[Hank Rearden]

John, his silence seems to indicate that "Bob Jones III" was nothing but a troll. Well done, sir!

We've known for years that Liberals can't stand the truth....

[BTW1208]

From the so-called Reason.com, trying to frame lying by both parties

http://reason.com/blog/2008/10/30/republicans-deceive-democrats/print

[John Galt]

The Reason article is about euphemism.

BTW1208, you don't honestly think "universal healthcare" is simply a euphemism for "we're going to let you die," do you?