The first lesson you learned about honesty probably involved telling your kindergarten classmate that it was you who ate his pudding. What you won’t learn in kindergarten is the slightly more serious and considerably more cynical idea that honesty is not always the best policy. Mitt Romney and his now-infamous 47 percent speech exemplify this in the field of today’s competitive politics. Not to say that his statements were correct in any way, and not to say that they didn’t mark his entire political party with a label of disdainful arrogance, but it does say something about whether or not candidates should really be honest with the public. Is it in a candidate’s self-interest to divulge their real opinions?
Politicians will say that an election is essentially an opportunity to sell themselves, to appeal to as many different people as possible. Or maybe they won’t tell you that. Maybe they would say something more along the lines of it being an opportunity to try and serve their country and make the land a better place. That sounds more virtuous and is more likely to get them into office. Or maybe they are telling the truth. The great paradox in politics right now is that voters must vote for the candidate who they think has the same views as they do. However, there is really no way to tell what is really going on in the minds of the candidates because there is no place for honest discussion in politics.
To the farmer in rural Iowa, any given candidate is a middle-class, working man. But the second he steps off of his private jet in New York, he is a supporter of the big businessman. The modern candidate is an amoeba that no voter can really get a handle on, and therefore, every election is truly a gamble. A well-informed gamble, no doubt, but a gamble nonetheless. During the primaries, the public even expects some hopefuls to drop out because of scandal. We outright expect our educated elite to be involved in delinquent behavior because, after more than 200 years, we’ve become familiar with the flawed human tendencies of those in power.
The fragility of political campaigns has caused lying and sterilization to become a norm in politics. If a candidate upsets one individual, that hurt gets magnified and the candidate finds that overnight he or she has offended an entire demographic. On top of this, a presidential campaign is on such a large stage that making one remark can land you in the doghouse with 47 percent of the nation. This has led to an unnatural purification of speech, which in turn leads to too many policies implemented solely because of political reasons. Too many marriages are not allowed to take place, too many substances are banned, and too many wars take place, all products of politics as opposed to beliefs.
Right now, about 75 percent of the UW-Madison campus, including myself, will vote in November for the first time (hopefully the turnout is that good). We now enter the world of nonsense and deceit, with no choice but to fall in line with everyone else who can’t sift through the noise. Our only option is to recognize the fact that American politics is filled with contradictions, and then make an educated decision based on what we perceive to be honest about the candidates, whether or not those honesties are politically correct.
In an election, everyone looks for the most relatable candidate, the man or woman with whom you can connect with, who can sit down at your dinner table with you and be a part of the conversation. And I am fully aware it’s a politician’s job to appeal to everyone, but they should be able to do so while still being genuine. Maybe it’s a naïve way of looking at the world, but the only way the United States will ever have a government capable of effectively dealing with pressing issues is if politicians engage in honest debate that people can trust.
This is Jonny’s first article for The Daily Cardinal. Let him know what you think by sending all letters and feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
