In two of my earlier articles, I showed a graph of data collected by counting PolitiFact.com‘s “Truth-o-meter” ratings of statements made by the then-current Presidential candidates. We’ve narrowed the field to the presumptive candidates for our two major political parties. On Wednesday, July 6th, I trimmed my graph to those two and updated the counts.
Do candidates running for office “exaggerate”? Politifact, an equal opportunity critic of both the Left and the Right, provides evidence that they do.
Of more concern than outright lies are questionable promises. A candidate can legitimately promise to propose and push programs and/or legislation. A candidate can legitimately promise to focus on a particular political agenda. A candidate can legitimately promise to lead, but …
… a candidate who makes unconditional promises to “reduce taxes”, “fix the economy”, “end a war”, etc., etc., etc. is being dishonest, dogmatic, or delusional.
A bare-faced lie is the least egregious. Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Eventually, the lie will be detected.
Sticking to an absolute campaign promise regardless of changing circumstances is extremely dangerous. Ignoring or not even considering previously unforseen consequences can lead to chaos. Most of our country’s wars were started, entered, escalated, or justified by lies. Many of those wars have left the world in a more chaotic state than before they began.
Anyone who really believes that a President, a Senator, a Representative, or a Judge can correct a major problem unilaterally is either grossly ignorant of the safeguards built into our government or is an egomaniac with delusions of absolute power.
Our presumptive Presidential candidates are among the least trusted ever. Both have been running trust ratings below 50%. Which candidate is better? I’ve made my choice. Have you? We have the opportunity to record our choices on Tuesday, November 8, 2016.