Truth, Honesty and Politics by Denise Morris on 03/27/2008 at 1:40 PM

We published a TrueU article today about Truth, Honesty and Politics. Hmm, those things don't seem to go together, do they?

Doc Leland, a professor at the Focus on the Family Institute, wrote this article to encourage us to ask the right questions when it comes to deciding which candidate we'll vote for. Much of the process has become a game, which Leland recognizes and hopes that we overcome:   

I used to work in politics. I've helped several candidates get elected (and a few get not elected as well). I know how the "spin" works and I know what the public wants to hear. Through my work in politics it became abundantly clear that only one in 1,000 folks — well, very few, anyway — had any idea what tax policy really looked like or how social welfare policy impacted them. I know that very few had even an inkling of what foreign policy or energy policy had to do with their own lives. Why, then, are we still seeing candidates present lofty policy goals, when so few people have any idea what these candidates are talking about?

Leland encourages us to ask three basic questions of candidates:

1. What are your basic beliefs and what do you believe to be true?

When we dig this deep, we help people see a candidate for who they really are — which isn't all that different from us, really. That is, we all have a worldview, and that worldview manifests itself in the things we say we believe. Even more, it manifests itself in what we do with those beliefs.

2. How do you think those values and beliefs will impact the decisions you'll make while you're in office?

Here's where the rubber meets the road. Once the candidate has identified their beliefs, we need to see the degree to which they integrate these beliefs into their actual decision making.

3. Do you have the strength of conviction to stand up for those beliefs when others line up against them and attack them?

How many times have we been disappointed in governing leadership when they say they stand for something and then publicly decide in another direction? Too many, probably. I believe we need candidates who have convictions and stand by them.

Leland proposes that when we know the foundational beliefs of each candidate, we'll be able to understand more about why they believe what they do about specific policy issues. Many politicians know what to say to become more popular, and we're partially at fault for being voters who elect people based on snippets and popularity.

Everyone has a worldview that affects what they believe and why. We should ask honest questions of candidates in order to figure out how their beliefs will influence their leadership.

P.S. TrueU has a brand new video. You'll probably want to check it out as soon as possible.

Truth, Honesty and Politics by Denise Morris on 03/27/2008 at 1:40 PM

We published a TrueU article today about Truth, Honesty and Politics. Hmm, those things don't seem to go together, do they?

Doc Leland, a professor at the Focus on the Family Institute, wrote this article to encourage us to ask the right questions when it comes to deciding which candidate we'll vote for. Much of the process has become a game, which Leland recognizes and hopes that we overcome:   

I used to work in politics. I've helped several candidates get elected (and a few get not elected as well). I know how the "spin" works and I know what the public wants to hear. Through my work in politics it became abundantly clear that only one in 1,000 folks — well, very few, anyway — had any idea what tax policy really looked like or how social welfare policy impacted them. I know that very few had even an inkling of what foreign policy or energy policy had to do with their own lives. Why, then, are we still seeing candidates present lofty policy goals, when so few people have any idea what these candidates are talking about?

Leland encourages us to ask three basic questions of candidates:

1. What are your basic beliefs and what do you believe to be true?

When we dig this deep, we help people see a candidate for who they really are — which isn't all that different from us, really. That is, we all have a worldview, and that worldview manifests itself in the things we say we believe. Even more, it manifests itself in what we do with those beliefs.

2. How do you think those values and beliefs will impact the decisions you'll make while you're in office?

Here's where the rubber meets the road. Once the candidate has identified their beliefs, we need to see the degree to which they integrate these beliefs into their actual decision making.

3. Do you have the strength of conviction to stand up for those beliefs when others line up against them and attack them?

How many times have we been disappointed in governing leadership when they say they stand for something and then publicly decide in another direction? Too many, probably. I believe we need candidates who have convictions and stand by them.

Leland proposes that when we know the foundational beliefs of each candidate, we'll be able to understand more about why they believe what they do about specific policy issues. Many politicians know what to say to become more popular, and we're partially at fault for being voters who elect people based on snippets and popularity.

Everyone has a worldview that affects what they believe and why. We should ask honest questions of candidates in order to figure out how their beliefs will influence their leadership.

P.S. TrueU has a brand new video. You'll probably want to check it out as soon as possible.

Comments

[1. Michele Samuelson said the following at 4:04 PM on Mar 27:]

1

Leland's suggestion is a very sound one. Like him, I used to work in politics. I'm still very involved on a volunteer level, and one thing I've noticed time and again is that the average voter is terribly unprepared, and the average candidate (even the good guys) spends a lot of time working out how to exploit that. Very simply, they know that all it takes sometimes is just you, the voter, severely disliking or distrusting "the other guy" - so instead of spending time on their own policies, they just attack their opponents.

Ask questions, show up, and make sure you vote. It's the most basic way of effecting change.

[2. a sassy sister said the following at 7:52 AM on Mar 28:]

2

I agree wholeheartedly with Michelle. However, I also would encourage voters to really understand THE BASICS of government--knowing what government structure you're dealing with and how policies are put into place. That doesn't mean that you somehow try to become a political expert, but you understand how and WHY your vote counts in the system.

[3. JB said the following at 12:08 PM on Mar 28:]

3

I don't know how significant "worldview" really is in American politics. Except for a few high profile issues, like abortion or same sex marriage, I think most people are more or less on the same ethical page. A lot of our policy disagreements come down to disagreements about empirical facts.

Global warming, for example, either is or is not happening and either is or is not destructive, but if we agreed that it's real and destructive wouldn't we all support more or less the same policies? The debate about the war in Iraq, also, concerned intelligence information and projections about the likely geopolitical consequences of invasion. No one was arguing that democracy isn't good or that Saddam Hussein ought to have weapons of mass destruction. Instead the debate was about what would be the real world consequences of one policy versus another.

In fact, reducing policy issues to moral stances, as I think the Bush administration has frequently done, is detrimental to the political process. When confronted with difficult decisions that turn on real world information, it's become far too easy for politicians to dodge the issue by invoking some vague moral principle. Bush doesn't need to talk about poor war planning and poor assessment of intelligence if he can invoke rhetoric about democracy and freedom instead.

I don't particularly care to hear the presidential candidates wax poetic about the wonders of freedom in the Middle East, I want them to talk about how they would concretely deal with the issues in that area. And I don't care to hear some dissertation on self-reliance and American entrepreneurship, I want actual policy proposals for health care and economic issues.

[4. Chris said the following at 7:25 PM on Mar 28:]

4

One issue not addressed by the piece is one that is fundamental to politics and to a democratic republican form of government: compromise.

Part of the problem with today's partisan politics is that compromise is seen as weakness or giving in. Yes, there are certain lines you don't want to cross, but no one gets everything they want in a democratic system. You have to meet somewhere in the middle.

JB makes a good point of this in terms of Bush classifying everything as a moral stance. Obviously, in such a framework, things are right or they are wrong. Problem is, the world is grey, and this type of attitude (by leaders and voters) paralyzes government.

Maybe I'm reading stuff into it, but Leland's 3rd point seems to fall in line with this type of black/white, right/wrong, compromise-is-failure mentality. Rather than ask a candidate how he/she is going to defend some belief system, I'd rather ask how he/she plans to work with people of opposite persuasion to fix common problems. You know, be a "uniter, not a divider."

[5. Zusanne said the following at 8:47 PM on Mar 28:]

5

Something else significant: people need to have longer-than-the-sound-bites information AND memories.

For example: how many people remember why we went to Iraq? Saddam had been jerking around the UN for close to two decades. The Security Council voted 14-0 to FINALLY do something about this menace.

It's easier to keep rehashing the same 5-second clips instead of digging deeper, getting the real information, remembering it and holding accountible the people who are in office.

That's one reason I'm enjoying this election cycle with such interest. The internet has provided people--who are interested enough to learn the whole story and not look for a quick, easy answer--with access to the facts and the opportunity to hold candidates responsible when they contradict (i.e., Hillary's "this is not a rush to war" speech and then take it back).

we need to hold the candidates responsible, but we have a responsibility as voters to inform ourselves as well.

[1. Michele Samuelson said the following at 4:04 PM on Mar 27:]

1

Leland's suggestion is a very sound one. Like him, I used to work in politics. I'm still very involved on a volunteer level, and one thing I've noticed time and again is that the average voter is terribly unprepared, and the average candidate (even the good guys) spends a lot of time working out how to exploit that. Very simply, they know that all it takes sometimes is just you, the voter, severely disliking or distrusting "the other guy" - so instead of spending time on their own policies, they just attack their opponents.

Ask questions, show up, and make sure you vote. It's the most basic way of effecting change.

[2. a sassy sister said the following at 7:52 AM on Mar 28:]

2

I agree wholeheartedly with Michelle. However, I also would encourage voters to really understand THE BASICS of government--knowing what government structure you're dealing with and how policies are put into place. That doesn't mean that you somehow try to become a political expert, but you understand how and WHY your vote counts in the system.

[3. JB said the following at 12:08 PM on Mar 28:]

3

I don't know how significant "worldview" really is in American politics. Except for a few high profile issues, like abortion or same sex marriage, I think most people are more or less on the same ethical page. A lot of our policy disagreements come down to disagreements about empirical facts.

Global warming, for example, either is or is not happening and either is or is not destructive, but if we agreed that it's real and destructive wouldn't we all support more or less the same policies? The debate about the war in Iraq, also, concerned intelligence information and projections about the likely geopolitical consequences of invasion. No one was arguing that democracy isn't good or that Saddam Hussein ought to have weapons of mass destruction. Instead the debate was about what would be the real world consequences of one policy versus another.

In fact, reducing policy issues to moral stances, as I think the Bush administration has frequently done, is detrimental to the political process. When confronted with difficult decisions that turn on real world information, it's become far too easy for politicians to dodge the issue by invoking some vague moral principle. Bush doesn't need to talk about poor war planning and poor assessment of intelligence if he can invoke rhetoric about democracy and freedom instead.

I don't particularly care to hear the presidential candidates wax poetic about the wonders of freedom in the Middle East, I want them to talk about how they would concretely deal with the issues in that area. And I don't care to hear some dissertation on self-reliance and American entrepreneurship, I want actual policy proposals for health care and economic issues.

[4. Chris said the following at 7:25 PM on Mar 28:]

4

One issue not addressed by the piece is one that is fundamental to politics and to a democratic republican form of government: compromise.

Part of the problem with today's partisan politics is that compromise is seen as weakness or giving in. Yes, there are certain lines you don't want to cross, but no one gets everything they want in a democratic system. You have to meet somewhere in the middle.

JB makes a good point of this in terms of Bush classifying everything as a moral stance. Obviously, in such a framework, things are right or they are wrong. Problem is, the world is grey, and this type of attitude (by leaders and voters) paralyzes government.

Maybe I'm reading stuff into it, but Leland's 3rd point seems to fall in line with this type of black/white, right/wrong, compromise-is-failure mentality. Rather than ask a candidate how he/she is going to defend some belief system, I'd rather ask how he/she plans to work with people of opposite persuasion to fix common problems. You know, be a "uniter, not a divider."

[5. Zusanne said the following at 8:47 PM on Mar 28:]

5

Something else significant: people need to have longer-than-the-sound-bites information AND memories.

For example: how many people remember why we went to Iraq? Saddam had been jerking around the UN for close to two decades. The Security Council voted 14-0 to FINALLY do something about this menace.

It's easier to keep rehashing the same 5-second clips instead of digging deeper, getting the real information, remembering it and holding accountible the people who are in office.

That's one reason I'm enjoying this election cycle with such interest. The internet has provided people--who are interested enough to learn the whole story and not look for a quick, easy answer--with access to the facts and the opportunity to hold candidates responsible when they contradict (i.e., Hillary's "this is not a rush to war" speech and then take it back).

we need to hold the candidates responsible, but we have a responsibility as voters to inform ourselves as well.