Editor's Note: This editorial includes two clarifying paragraphs (italized below) added after its original publication. This varies from the version in the print edition dated Sept. 3.
By casting their votes Tuesday evening at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, delegates made official what everyone already knew: Mitt Romney is their presidential candidate. As is always the case in such political party gatherings, a string of (in some cases) stirring speeches supported their nominee and provided rah-rah and rationale for their choice.
Next week the Democratic Convention will no doubt provide similar hyped-up speeches and bombastic vocal cheerleading to begin the final two-month dash to the election. I am not one to advise you on how you should vote because the right and responsibility of reaching that conclusion is yours alone.
Jim White
|
We Americans are accustomed to this quadrennial ritual, and even though most of us abhor the mud-slinging and muckraking, through it all we somehow decide on the candidate for whom to cast our ballot. Still, the candidates are not making it easy.
An Obama campaign super PAC commercial that suggests that Romney is responsible for the death of a woman who died of cancer after her husband lost his job as a steelworker when a Bain investment went bust. Never mind that the woman had (and later lost) her own health insurance and that her death was five years after her husband lost his job. As an editorial in USA Today said, “The implication that Romney is somehow responsible for this woman’s death crosses far over the line between reasonable campaign hyperbole and shameless falsehood.”
To be fair to the president, when it became obvious that the ad had created a maelstrom of negative reaction, he made a surprise visit to the White House briefing room saying, “"I don't think that Gov. Romney is somehow responsible for the death of the woman that was portrayed in that ad." Then, he went on to say, "But keep in mind this was an ad that I did not approve, I did not produce and as far as I can tell has barely run. I think it ran once."
It is worth noting that he did not claim that he didn’t know about the ad, however. Ads run by super PACs are not required to contain the familiar, “This is [Candidate’s Name] and I approve this message.”In fact, Obama is on record scoffing at the idea that candidates have no control over ads run by super PACs on their behalf.
But Romney’s side, too, has told blatant falsehoods in two ads stating that Obama has removed a work requirement for welfare recipients. The ad says that under Obama’s plan, “You wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.” According to factcheck.org and politicheck.com this is simply not true.
Political historians offer consolation by reminding us that it has been worse in times past—as when John Quincy Adams’ supporters publicized that Andrew Jackson’s mother was a prostitute, his wife was labeled a bigamist and Jackson himself was called a murderer. Opponents also attempted to sully Jackson’s military record in the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812.
But for me, the knowledge that the current mudslinging could be worse fails to assuage my anger and disappointment. Each of these men is campaigning for the highest office in the land (arguably, in the world), and each has demonstrated that he is willing to lie (or at the very least to condone a lie) to get what he wants.
Perhaps they are counting on our being willing to dismiss anything they say during the heat of a political race as campaign rhetoric and not expect the truth. But are we? Should we?
I expect our president to be truthful. I understand that for national security reasons presidents can’t tell everything they know. I can even accept that a strategy of “disinformation” might even be justified on occasion. But outright intentional falsehoods in a political campaign don’t qualify. When a candidate lies about his or her opponent, we learn more about the candidate than the opponent.
What have we learned so far in the 2012 campaign? We can’t trust either candidate to be straight with us. Lacking a viable alternative, we are faced with choosing which liar we want to elect. Perhaps I am guilty of using indelicate language, but I am being truthful, nonetheless.
How can these men be so experienced in politics yet be so naïve as to think truthfulness doesn’t matter? The problem with telling or being complicit in fostering a lie is that from that point on people can’t trust what you tell them. Trust is broken and confidence is shaken.
The situation isn’t completely hopeless. Although it is too late for trust to be restored before the election, if our next president will unerringly demonstrate unwavering integrity, eventually trust can be restored. But it will take time, and it will take truthfulness.
So, if we know we cannot place full trust in what either candidate is telling us during this campaign, how do we decide? I’ve already mentioned politifact.com and factcheck.org. Use them. Unfortunately, this campaign is not unique. Candidates have skirted the truth (or ignored it) for a long time. But if we don’t expect our leaders to tell the truth, should we expect other forms of integrity?
Naturally, this campaign is multifaceted, and truthfulness is only one factor. You will balance this flaw with other traits and consider each candidate’s positions before arriving at your decision to cast your ballot. Political spin gurus count on our being too lazy to investigate a candidate’s positions. Prove them wrong. Before you vote for one or the other, find out what they believe and what they are supporting generally.
Avoid being a one-issue voter. The world is too complex to reduce the campaign to a single issue, whether it is gun control, abortion, health care or a candidate’s religious beliefs. These are, of course, important considerations, but we need to balance them with other concerns of the economy, national debt, immigration, the military, international relations and social issues to name a few.
We will all be subjected to infuriatingly rancorous sound-bite campaign ads. Ignore them. Get your information from debates and credible news sources. Don’t rely on what a friend emails you to get your political knowledge.
Finally, pray. Pray for our country, for the candidates and for yourself as you make your decision. We can begin to make a difference in the civility of political campaigns if we continue to express ourselves. Our national leaders have too much responsibility and influence in our world to elect less than our best.
Jim White ([email protected]) is executive editor of the Religious Herald.