Dishonest Politics a Mirror of Ourselves
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler

A question has been rattling around in my mind: "What would have to change for us to have politicians who speak to us honestly, plainly, about what they really think and why they're doing what they're doing?" The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the question is not so much about the defects in our politicians as about the defects in us, the American people.

This question about honest politics is certainly timely. The memory of campaign '96 is fresh in our minds, with images of "Mediscare" and "15% across the board tax-cuts," of people who live in glass houses throwing stones at the veracity of their opponents. But of course, the problem is perennial, going back to the beginnings of the Republic and up through fictional "missile gaps" and "secret plans to end the war" and pledges to balance the budget and invitations to read our leaders' lips.

If your appetite is for straight talk, the words of politicians make an unsatisfactory meal. As a certified news junkie, I videotape news programs everyday for my late evening perusal. It has taken me years, but I've finally learned to fast-forward through the interviews with elected politicians. From the postures they assume, as phony and calculated as they are uninformative, I just don't learn much. It reminds me of the definition of an ambassador as someone who is paid to lie for his country. I fast-forward through ambassadors, too, when they appear on Nightline or The News Hour. Give me those straight-forward experts and analysts who see their job as simply to provide illumination and insight.

I once thought the problem was that the politicians were mental mediocraties, lacking the intelligence of a good academic. But I have since read enough memoirs to know that the politicians can be quite perceptive. It's just that in the arena of public political combat, telling the truth is not the name of the game.

I've also toyed with the idea that the problem is with the media and the pervasive cynicism that accompanies the reporting on politics. Everything is nowadays reduced to "spin." The question is not what's true and right so much as what does this posturing mean in terms of tactics in the ongoing struggle for political advantage. "He's shoring up his base." "He's trying to seize the political center." "He's using this as a wedge issue." The discourse by which our nation defines itself and shapes its future is reduced to the moral equivalent of football, with blitzes and overloading of zones.

Sure, the cynicism of the press is a problem, but I think it is also in part a blessing. It is a problem because if a politician did speak to us straight from the heart, today's media would distort it into something else. Let's call it the sincerity ploy, they'd tell us. But it seems to me that the cynicism of the media is not the root of the problem, but rather is the fruit of a political culture of manipulation and the con job. And so long as that is what our politicians practice, the media's cynicism --by helping us not mistake the manipulations for real honesty communication-- holds open a space for our sanity.

So what is the problem? Listening to talk radio, it is clear whom the American people blame: the craven politicians. They are all liars, the callers say. The people's distaste for, and blaming of, our political leaders has been thick and palpable for years now.
I think that's a cop-out. The defects of our politicians, I have come to realize, are a mirror of our own shortcomings.

No, I'm not just saying that politicians are human, like us, and that it is unrealistic to expect them to be better than we are. It is not that they are "representative" of the population from which they grow, it is that they are experts in being what voters will reward. The fault, dear fellow-voters, lies not in our leaders but in ourselves.

Think of the politician as a player in a game that is scored in terms of votes. Winning election, and then re-election, is what the game is about. This may seem obvious, but it has important implications. There's no point in asking why they can't rise above that game: those who rise above it get removed by the voters from the game. A process of selection assures that only those who play the election game well remain on the public stage.

So the question really is: "What would have to change for American voters to reward politicians for honest, instead of manipulative, speech?"

Although I haven't come up with an answer to that question, I do have a way into the inquiry to propose. Let's look at some of the typical lies our politicians tell us.
*** "I'm going to give you what you want, and nothing will be asked of you." Our taxes are always going to be cut, our favorite programs are always going to be protected. Sacrifice is not in the vocabulary of today's politician. So, how would we have to change for us to welcome a politician's telling us that we can't have everything? (Or do they have to retire from politics and then speak to us from the Concord Coalition?)

*** "You, the American people are exemplary, the epitome of virtue and wisdom. Whatever goes wrong is never your fault." In olden times, the sovereign was the king and he was surrounded by sycophants who stroked him with unceasing flattery. Now the people are sovereign, and we get flattered by our elected officials like kings of old. They promise us "a government as good as the American people"; in their campaign speeches, "the American people" is a phrase equivalent to "the voice of God." What would have to change for us to be willing to reward politicians who will speak to us honestly of our faults, of our selfishness and shortsightedness and narrow-mindedness, as well as of our virtues, who would not only tell us how great we are but challenge us to be better?

*** "All the scenarios I can imagine are rosy. All the problems we face are soluble, and I have the solutions." Optimism and boundless self-confidence seem to be prerequisites for success in the American political system. It is not only that the candidate must be absolutely certain of his own victory right up until his concession speech. On the nation's business, too, he (or she) must continually assure us that everything will of course work out just fine, if he's given the power. Our leaders are never bewildered or uncertain. "I don't know" isn't what we want to hear. We prefer Bob Dole's "I know the way." What would it take for the American people to reward less of this kind of phony confidence and more of the Socratic wisdom that knows that it does not know?

Whatever else these changes would require, it would seem that if we want honest politicians we need as a people to develop a deeper honesty with ourselves, a more mature capacity to face the moral defects in our own desires. And to be able to reward honesty, we'll need a greater courage in confronting the realities of our condition, our own ignorance and uncertainty, and the fears these raise for us.

A great deal is at stake. For unless we are able to face together the real nature of the challenges and choices we face as a nation, we won't be able to work together, with our best collective wisdom, to shape our destiny.