Today’s TV journalists — anchors like Chuck Todd, Jake Tapper and George Stephanopoulos — have picked up the torch of fact-checking and now grill candidates on issues of accuracy during live interviews. Most voters don’t think it’s biased to question people about whether their seemingly fact-based statements are accurate. Research published earlier this year by the American Press Institute showed that more than eight in 10 Americans have a positive view of political fact-checking. In fact, journalists regularly tell me their media organizations have started highlighting fact-checking in their reporting because so many people click on fact-checking stories after a debate or high-profile news event. Many readers now want fact-checking as part of traditional news stories as well; they will vocally complain to ombudsmen and readers’ representatives when they see news stories repeating discredited factual claims.
Politicians lie; always have, always will. There’s nothing new and/or unusual in that statement. Those who’d seek political power can and do include those for who consider integrity to be the province of losers and Liberals. Roger Ailes has often been credited (though there’s no credible source to be cited) with saying that “Truth is whatever people will believe.”
As cynical as that may sound, politics and integrity go together like peanut butter and pizza. Running for office, especially at the national level, means being willing to shade and/or manipulate the truth to full advantage. Why do Presidential debates have “spin rooms,” where spokespeople for candidates endeavor to put the best spin on issues discussed and statements made? In the civilian world, truth is generally held to be absolute- something either is or is not, and those who traffic in shades of gray tend to be moral relativists, sociopaths, or politicians. Sometimes, all of those things come packaged together (et tu, Donald Trump?)
Things become very interesting when you begin to evaluate the question of whether one party is more consistently dishonest than the other. The answer should surprise no one who pays attention to politics these days. Republicans and Democrats may lie when the need arises, but dishonesty is the lingua franca of the GOP.
Candidates’ fans may complain about press bias, but my impression is that less partisan voters pay a lot of attention to these media moments, especially when elections are close and decided by a few percentage points. Trust and integrity are still crucial assets for a politician.
Yes, trust and integrity may be crucial assets under normal circumstances, but a look at the 2016 Presidential campaign clearly indicates a situation in which little is reminiscent of normal. When I was in the Army, we had an acronym for situations like this: FUBAR. I’ll leave it to my gentle reader to sort out the definition, but it most certainly applies.
Not surprisingly, truth has been the first casualty of this campaign, as it is with most any political endeavor. For a politician, living in a world defined by moral absolutism is a recipe for a crushing, ignominious defeat.
The “truth,” such as it is, turns out to mean far less to Republicans than it does Democrats. Yes, I realize that PolitiFact is but one measuring stick. I on occasion have had my own problems with their methodology and conclusions. Fact-checking the fact-checkers is not yet an advanced art, but for the most part, these things work reasonably well. The above chart should if nothing else serve as graphic illustration of the reality that Republicans tend to be far more dishonest than Democrats. Not that I’m going to claim that Democrats are inherently morally superior, but the chart speaks for itself.
The question it leaves me with is why, if Republicans are convinced of their superiority to Democrats, do they uniformly feel the need to be so dishonest? When you can lie about running a campaign based on honesty and integrity (et tu, Ted Cruz?), what are you really offering the American Sheeple save for demagoguery and an unyielding devotion and commitment your own self-aggrandizement and self-interest? When you feel compelled to lie about your devotion to truth and honesty, do you really have anything of value to offer? Or is it really just about winning by whatever means may be required to convince the American Sheeple to vote for you?
As if that question is anything but rhetorical….
