I am ready for the gubernatorial election to be over! The televised ads produced by the McDonnell and Deeds campaign staffs and approved by the candidates themselves — if even their endorsements of their own ads can be believed — have only one objective. Each is aimed at convincing voters that the other candidate would be an incredibly reckless choice to serve as Virginia’s governor.
I, for one, have been convinced. After repeated exposure to ads in which the inept thinking of each is reportedly exposed, I now believe that neither one is worthy of my vote! I wish I were kidding.
Jim White
|
I am sure that each candidate has redeeming character qualities lying hidden beneath all those layers of mud, but complete truthfulness is, apparently, not one either possesses even latently. In my opinion, the ability to value long-term societal gain above short-term personal/political advantage is also lacking.
Apparently, Deeds wants us to believe that, if elected, McDonnell will decree that even married couples cannot use birth control measures. Thank heavens that many of us are baby boomers and not so concerned any longer about unplanned stork arrivals. (Yes, I see that pun!)
On the other hand, McDonnell would have us believe that Deeds’s greatest ambition in life is to raise taxes.
In my way of thinking each has become a casualty in the voter war not because of damage inflicted by the other side, but by making allegations aimed at causing voters to reach a false conclusion about the other. But other significant casualties have also been part of the political collateral damage. One such victim is confidence in government. When our next governor assumes office, the electorate will have been subjected to months of messages specifically designed to convince us that he is not qualified to hold the office. It should come as no surprise, then, if Virginians have few positive expectations of their next leader.
But an even greater casualty is truth. What this (and other) elections have demonstrated is that it is permissible to lie as long as you get what you want. Curiously, each seeks to add validity to his accusations by quoting newspapers. “According to the Washington Post …,” quotes one in attaching the other. And, to counter that very accusation his opponent says, “According to the Washington Post .…”
Have you wondered how the Washington Post could say totally opposite things? The answer, according to the Washington Post, is this: “Never mind that the quotes are often taken from opinion pieces that were not intended to be objective in the first place. And never mind that useful information is often omitted and quotes are sometimes sliced and diced to make them mean something a little different than when they were produced” (Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post, Oct. 8).
In other words, they are trying to mislead us by giving us only part of the truth. They give us only the part of the truth that will cause us to reach a false conclusion. Don’t even expect “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” from someone running for political office! Truth has been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. It is far from the first time, of course, and we may predict with near absolute certainty that it won’t be the last. Still, though mine may be a lonely voice, I raise it to object!
Are we willing to simply accept that all the lie-telling is just what candidates have to do to get elected?
Is it correct that a candidate who does not bash his or her opponent has little chance of getting elected?
Do we think that a person who lies to us throughout the campaign will suddenly become trustworthy once the ballots have been counted?
Are voters so naïve that we can be intentionally misled and not resent the attempt or so docile that we can be lied to and not react with disdain?
If your answer to any of these questions is “yes,” then another begs to be asked: “What is wrong with us?” Shouldn’t we expect better of our leaders than this? Shouldn’t we expect more of ourselves than to elect them?
Some will no doubt demonstrate their frustrations by refusing to cast their votes for either candidate. I admit, an election boycott is tempting but would accomplish nothing. If every objective voter refused to cast a ballot, then the candidate with the largest family and the greatest number of political benefactors would be elected every time. A better solution than this can surely be found.
In the interest of truth, perhaps we should acknowledge that politicians are not the only ones who attempt to employ selective information to affect an outcome. Businesses do it all the time. Because drug companies withheld critical data in their reports, they have now been forced to disclose side effects. “… [I]n control groups, a small percentage had their hair fall out, went blind and then died. Check with your doctor to see if hydrochloric acid is right for you.”
School teachers are accustomed to hearing the truth altered to fit the situation every time a “dog ate my homework” excuse is offered by students.
We might expect that if any groups are immune to temptations to be less than completely truthful to cause a faulty conclusion, it would be the scientific community and the church. Wrong on both counts. The professor wars among competing paleontology camps after the discovery of ancient remains in Africa is now legendary. Each side accused the other of manipulating the facts to fit its own conclusions. So much for science.
And in the church, look no further than the infamous allegation that the Baptist World Alliance was moving toward universalism. The charge produced the outcome desired by the accusers: the Southern Baptist Convention withdrew from the BWA.
It seems to me that a starting place is to value truth enough to let it speak for itself before we reach a conclusion. At times, truth is self-evident. At other times it must be actively sought before it emerges. In either case, if we believe that what Jesus said is true — that truth will set us free — we need to seek it passionately — and just as passionately condemn a false witness.
Only if enough of us seek truth and stand for truth and refuse to accept less than the truth will it become a cultural expectation.
As for the coming election, do you have a write-in name to suggest?
Jim White is editor of the Religious Herald.