Politicians running for election can't be honest with the voter

[WIP]

Since I got my first Ipod a couple of years ago, I've been spending less time downloading music, and more time listening to the new and rapidly growing phenomena of podcasting. There are some radio and TV programs that are available by podcast; but the most interesting group are the independent podcasters, who may have started with blogging and then decided to make their own audio programs that would have previously required a broadcast outlet.

Psychologist Dr. Michael Britt does a weekly, or sometimes biweekly podcast called the Psych Files; in the latest episode, he covers some old research that provides a little insight into why it is so frustrating listening to politicians speak. In brief, the average voter says he wants honest politicians who speak the truth, but in actual fact will not vote for such a politician, and instead rewards the one who speaks in fuzzy generalities and promises easy solutions for difficult problems.

And afterwards, when promises have either failed or been seriously modified, the same people are whining about being fooled again and on to another search for the ever elusive honest politician.

[kakowi]

My opinion is that if you can find an honest politician he is likely to be an unsuccessful one.

This is because a politician relies on votes to get into office. And if you ever say a contentious statement, you would have known that half of the people you met call you 'brother' or 'sister' and the other half thinks they are far more brilliant than you.

I will settle for one who is concern about income inequality, the elimination of poverty and the growth of the nation.

[Oleg Bach]

My opinion is that if you can find an honest politician he is likely to be an unsuccessful one.

This is because a politician relies on votes to get into office. And if you ever say a contentious statement, you would have known that half of the people you met call you 'brother' or 'sister' and the other half thinks they are far more brilliant than you.

I will settle for one who is concern about income inequality, the elimination of poverty and the growth of the nation.

With out polls all would be at a stand still - I could see it now - McGinty over morning coffee..."Honey I don't have a clue what to do to stay in power - where did you put the latest polls? - you had better find them or we will be in the poor house".

[kakowi]

I may not understand your point fully.

Is it "some politicians run their policies based on opinion polls in order to secure votes for subsequent elections?"

i.e. polls ---> decisions

But surely there are others who used results as a basis for re-election and these results point to competence in governance (which is acknowledged by the majority of voters as 'competence')....?

i.e. decisions ---> favourable polls

And there is no neccessity for honesty in either position. Just a desire to be effective in re-elections.

Edited November 25, 2008 by kakowi

[GostHacked]

In brief, the average voter says he wants honest politicians who speak the truth, but in actual fact will not vote for such a politician, and instead rewards the one who speaks in fuzzy generalities and promises easy solutions for difficult problems.

This is true. People like fluff/glamour/show. People vote in an image instead of substance. People tune out the guy who is speaking common sense. The last Canadian election I basicly threw away my vote. None of them had much of what I wanted. They all had a small peice of what I wanted, if they had combines all the good points from each camp, we would have a pretty damn good government right now.

I hated to throw away my vote. I would have been best off NOT to vote. But then I would not have much of a say in how things are going.

[Oleg Bach]

Look up the term Politic...It means a person that is shrew and crafty and skillful in the art of deception...that is the what a LIAR is. So never expect the truth from them. AND remember as we "elect" our weakest members to rule...that those that lie do it because they are not fit or strong enough to get by honestly - feel sorry for all politicians - they are your inferiours. Show them some mercy - they can not help themselves and being helpless - leads to wanting to be a politician.

[kakowi]

But a dictionary definition is an indication and cannot be used to define all politicians with the same brush.

True, most politicians are self-serving, at least that is my opinion.

But there are some politicians whose cause is greater than their selves. Maybe we can call them liars in the service of their cause, but i feel that is diminishing what they are. They can be more comfortable liars in service of the status quo.

I am referring to politicians like Gandhi, Mandela, Aung San Suu Ki.

[cybercoma]

I think there are lots of honest politicians; however, they're honest in the moment. Changing priorities can make it seem as though they're dishonest, but flexibility is a virtue and it's unfortunate the public doesn't see it that way.

[Pliny]

The big lie is that government will do something for "you". Politicians will cater to special interests that may include "you", they will buy votes with social programs that may include "you", they will unashamedly subsidize corporations which may include "you", they will grant monopolies to certain industries or unions which may include "you", they will pay themselves well which may include "you".

Let's see, how many votes is that.....a whole bunch - which may include you.

The reason they get away with making promises is because they are never promises made to "you". They cannot make deals with "you"- they cannot and must not be perceived as being "unfair" so they make promises to "the people", "society" or "the community" which may include a wink wink and a nudge nudge to you.

The honest politician is the one that doesn't promise "you" prosperity - the one that delivers "you" prosperity is no better than a thief telling you his activities are a zero-sum game. In all fairness, there may be some naivety on the part of politicians who believe government does have the power to deliver prosperity.

Government was designed to be about justice and collective defense. Today, in social democracies, it is about budgeting and accounting, essentially shoveling money around from place to place - the redistribution of wealth - condescendingly questioning the patriotism and morality of those they take away from and granting a sense of entitlement to those they give to - creating the class society while condemning it. They are essentially the unobserved agitator in class warfare.

Over the last century though I think they have learned that socialism makes them too obvious the culprits.

Now if they would only realize that their fiat currencies are the facilitators of war in all it's variations. This printable form of "money" (really a money substitute) makes it too easy for them to shovel it around to where they deem it should go - which all too often does not include you.

It is not a zero-sum game and creates animosities that are reflective of and a continuation of their preceding failure to deliver on their legitimate mandate of justice.

[WIP]

I may not understand your point fully.

Is it "some politicians run their policies based on opinion polls in order to secure votes for subsequent elections?"

i.e. polls ---> decisions

Oops! This thread was lying dormant for so long, I didn't think anyone was interested, and forgot about it myself.

Anyway, I should post a new link to page 2 of Michael Britt's site, since it was Episode 73 On The Folly of ....... Politics that got me thinking that this would add to the understanding of many people of all political viewpoints who are frustrated about why politicians never seem to govern in the same manner that they campaign and run for office.

From the podcast:

"On The Folly of Rewarding A While Hoping For B" is a well known article by Steven Kerr that appeared in The Academy of Management Executive. Want an example of how insightful Steven Kerr was with this article that is still relevant today? Look no further than the US election and Comedy Central.

In the "On The Folly…" article, Kerr states that,

Whether dealing with monkeys, rats or human beings…most organisms seek information concerning what activities are rewarded and then seek to do (or at least pretend to do) those things often to the virtual exclusion of activities not rewarded.

In politics, official goals…may be relied on to offend absolutely no one…The American voter typically punishes (withholds support from) candidates who frankly discuss where the money will come from, rewards politicians who speak only of official goals but hopes that candidates (despite the reward system) will discuss the issues operatively [i.e., with specifics].

* As an example of Steven Kerr’s insight into how rewards and punishment affect politics, take a look at this video from Comedy Central. Stewart’s "Generic-Off" shows how politicians are reluctant to talk specifics.

The most disheartening finding is that people do not value honesty as much as they claim to, so the politician who blurts out an unpleasant truth about how hard it will be to really solve a difficult issue, will not be rewarded for his honesty, but instead will be punished by voters who want something more optimistic! Take a look at how many times Obama and McCain mentioned how they will re-balance the federal budget after the current economic crisis is over..............well, actually they didn't talk about it at all, because there is going to be a nasty debtload for future generations to pay for. Saying something like: "I have no choice other than adding to the onerous debt that the Bush Admin. has left us with," would have been the ticket to a total wipeout on Election Day. So the politican will speak in vague generalities about future costs because he will not be rewarded for putting out hard numbers that the public doesn't want to hear about. When he does win office, he will avoid activities that are not rewarded, so problems that will be difficult and time-consuming to fix, will likely be left undone.