At any given moment, whatever comes out of a politician's mouth is more or less what he really thinks. That's right, I didn't mistype that. I believe most politicians tell the truth, most of the time, and are generally honest people.
There are exceptions of course. Some are soulless reptiles. Also, the longer a politician has been in office, the more likely he is to start lying to himself so he can lie to voters. It's usually pretty pretty obvious when that happens--and it does happen too often these days.
Anyway: Today Tom Daschle and Robert Byrd went nuts on the President, accusing him of saying Democrats are unpatriotic. You can decide for yourself whether these accusations have any merit. But let me go on record: I honestly think Daschle and Byrd pretty much mean it. Sure, like everything, it's all bound up in circumstance: maybe if they weren't Democrats, or if it were a different President, they wouldn't see it that way. But I honestly think they really mean it when they say it.
On the other hand, while I meant what I said about politicians, I think what politicians most reliably do when they're worried about elections is avoid saying certain things. I honestly believe that most politicians don't lie, but the game they play is in not saying certain things out loud. When they say certain things out loud, things they know will hurt them with some voters, it's usually because they've got a reason. Today, Daschle and Byrd embarassed their party, speaking in a way they knew would alienate countless middle-of-the-road voters.
If only one politician does this, it might indicate that someone just lost his temper, or has gone all stupid and rammed his foot in his mouth (not unlike the "Smart Jew/Dumb Jew" silliness to come out of Dick Armey's mouth this week). When two politicians together say something apparently stupid together, though, it probably indicates that they planned it. So I suggest that Daschle and Byrd planned it. Probably talked to others before they did it, too, and decided to go forward with something they knew in advance to be risky.
Why? Clearly their slams at the President make them look stupid to most voters. So why do it?
Simple: the rude truth is that most people don't vote in off-year elections. In off-year elections (like 2002), getting out the base is what's most important--it's always important, but in off-year elections it's more important than usual. So they're trying to try to stimulate the Left-wing base.
What it basically indicates is that they've decided there's no winning strategy for November but hoping that luck is kind. They have decided that "get out the base" is the only thing likely to help them. It's an act of desperation. It may work, but they're definitely a case of putting it all on one throw on the dice.
This latest outburst indicates that Democrats have decided to cut their losses, since on most issues there will not be a widespread groundswell of support for them among independent voters this year. Even if the Dow goes under 6000 in October (and it might), there won't be a groundswell of support for them, no angry charge to the polls by angry voters. They know this. They're upset by it, but they know it.
So it's simple: they're going to do whatever it takes to whip up a frenzy with the base, and hope for the best in November.
It may be a good strategy, actually.
Successful politicians understand that "truth" is a scarce commodity.
That being the case, they conserve it carefully and can be said to hoard it, using it only when absolutely necessary.
And, I might add, in very small doses. They make it sound like a good thing by saying, "A little bit of truth goes a long way," and other cute and clever things like that.
On the other hand, when they slip up and accidently tell the truth, we have a word for that: we call that a "gaffe."
BTW, who can tell me who coined that word?
Dick Armey is a great exception to Ara's rule about truth and politicians. he always speaks his mind and tells the truth. That's why Democrats dislike him.
Kevin B
...and Dick Armey makes no apologies.
Course, he's leaving the House so he can afford to be candid now.
Kevin said:
Dick Armey is a great exception to Ara's rule about truth and politicians. he always speaks his mind and tells the truth. That's why Democrats dislike him.
It may not just be Democrats.
I was reminded by my friend Dwight Merideth of the months preceding Newt's fall to earth when Armey told younger members of the House Republican Caucus that he would support a coup against Gingrich and then sold them out when they took him at his word.
Mr. Armey denied his role in the affair and then later apologized for the role he claimed he did not play in the first place.
Hm.
I looked up "gaffe" in the dictionary and I didn't say anything about accidentally telling the truth. It's merely defined as a social faux pas or a misjudgement. That "accidentally telling the truth" business sounds like some wag's joke.
As for successful politicians merely doling out small morsels of truth: I believe this illustrates the deep cynicism that now infects the Democratic Party. It seems that loyal Democrats no longer really believe in anything, except "stop the radical right." Your comments kind of vindicate that for me, Ara. I find it disappointing; the world's oldest, largest, and arguably its greatest political party has become ideologically incoherent and cynical to the core. This isn't healthy for the country.
I believe many successful politicians tell the truth most of the time. I can name several in the Senate who I think do this on a regular basis. The best politicians, in my view, are clearly uncomfortable when they lie, tell the truth as they see it whenever they can, and avoid dissembling whenever possible.
When I look at the Presidents of the last half-century or so, here's what I see:
Bush 43: Almost always tells you exactly what he thinks. Sometimes he changes his mind, or realizes he said something dumb. He is very embarassed whenever this happens. When he feels the need to dissemble, it's almost physically painful for him. He avoids it whenever possible.
He is underrated by his critics because they constantly mistake his honesty for stupidity. The man is an open book. His detractors can't quite make themselves believe this to be true.
Clinton: Could say literally anything at any time. Did more damage to the party than most of his supporters realize even now. The deep cynicism that he helped bring to the party does much to explain their frustration in confronting Bush and the Republicans.
Bush 41: Mostly told the truth most of the time. Lacked vision and consistency, not honesty.
Reagan: Almost always told you exactly what he thought. Sometimes he changed his mind, and sometimes a slippery memory made him contradict himself or say something dumb. But he rarely lied, and was often vindicated years later when something he was ridiculed for turned out to be the complete truth.
His critics mistook his honesty and straightforwardness for stupidity. The man was exactly the person he presented himself as, and his detractors could never quite make themselves believe this. They paid the price for it, because he almost always got about 90% of what he wanted--leaving them face down in the dirt, spitting blood, and wondering what the hell just happened.
Carter: Tried very hard never to lie, but also lacked any consistent or coherent vision, and thus contradicted himself constantly. A bright man, but a strange one.
Ford: Very honest.
Nixon: Would lie at the drop of a hat.
Johnson: Would lie at the drop of a hat.
Kennedy: Far more cynical than his martyrdom has made him in the eyes of many. Ditto RFK. But what you saw was pretty much what you got.
Eisenhower: Far more machiavellian than most people realize. Very rarely lied, and mostly told you what he believed. However, he was often incoherent, and sometimes was incoherent on purpose.
He was frequentely thought of as stupid by detractors, who were stunned when they were outmaneuvered by him--which happened regularly. (Are you starting to notice a pattern here?)
Truman: What you saw was what you got. Told you what he really thought, most of the time. Could be a major jerk, which is sometimes forgotten in the mists of time. Was consistently underestimated by his critics, who couldn't fathom that he really meant what he said most of the time.
Roosevelt: Senator Harry Truman once observed of Roosevelt that "the problem with the President is that he lies a lot." Much like Clinton, he had a habit of saying almost anything at any moment, sometimes to an almost pathological degree. His sainthood has caused most people to forget this, but he was never the universally beloved figure that Hollywood and historians like Doris Kearns Goodwin would have us believe.
---
Bush '43 has been breathtakingly effective as President. He has been ideologically inconsistent at times, and has felt the need to dissemble about certain issues involving foreign affairs. On the whole, though, he consistently and regularly outmaneuvers his opponents, and he does so in large part because his opponents still haven't figured out that he's a terribly straightforward and generally honest man.
He isn't a cynic. Neither are most of his fans. Until his critics fully come to grips with this, he'll continue to make fools of them.
You hit the nail on the head, baby!
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Well there you have it.
Everyone always asks me the same question.
Why Dean & I are together...we are an unlikely pair - many people have suggested.
(Plus, I'm way too pretty for him)
Now you know.
HE'S A HAMMER BABY!!!!!!!
So.....how's it hangin?
You know the coment string has petered out when...aw hell, just forget it, I already nailed it.
For the record:
The Columbia World of Quotations. 1996.
NUMBER: 32773
QUOTATION:
A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.
ATTRIBUTION:
Michael Kinsley (b. 1951), U.S. journalist. Guardian (London, Jan. 14, 1992).