Few members of the public have any desire to let politicians lie to them. Why, then, don’t they reject candidates shown to have lied? Sometimes they do, if the lie is important and there is clear evidence that it took place. But most of the time, the truth is hard to discern amid the barrage of accusations and counter-accusations about fraud, the broken promises, and the outright lies that fly fast and loose among campaigns.
If citizens do not trust what candidates say, then they cannot interpret the information they need to vote. This cuts at the very roots of what we mean by democracy, founded on the consent of the governed.
The worst outcome would be for everyone to give up -- for voters to conclude that all politicians lie and for politicians to lie when they think that they will get away with doing so, hoping that enough people will be misled and that others won’t hold it against them.
To reverse course, voters and politicians alike should set their standards for honesty higher. This calls for doing their best to distinguish between lies and honest mistakes; between lies that have been proved and lies that are only suspected; between deception through outright lies, half-truths and silence; between foolish promises or predictions and knowingly false ones; and between slipping into a lie and undertaking a policy of deceit -- choosing to be someone who deals with others through deceit.
The temptation is strong, in our partisan climate, for politicians, their supporters and all who have a stake in their victory to view their own misstatements as innocuous compared with those of their opponents. To the extent that they choose to engage in distortion and allow others to carry out smear campaigns on their behalf, they will contribute further to public distrust and to doubts about their personal character and integrity. –By Sissela Bok/The New York Times/January 25, 2012
If citizens do not trust what candidates say, then they cannot interpret the information they need to vote. This cuts at the very roots of what we mean by democracy, founded on the consent of the governed.
The worst outcome would be for everyone to give up -- for voters to conclude that all politicians lie and for politicians to lie when they think that they will get away with doing so, hoping that enough people will be misled and that others won’t hold it against them.
To reverse course, voters and politicians alike should set their standards for honesty higher. This calls for doing their best to distinguish between lies and honest mistakes; between lies that have been proved and lies that are only suspected; between deception through outright lies, half-truths and silence; between foolish promises or predictions and knowingly false ones; and between slipping into a lie and undertaking a policy of deceit -- choosing to be someone who deals with others through deceit.
The temptation is strong, in our partisan climate, for politicians, their supporters and all who have a stake in their victory to view their own misstatements as innocuous compared with those of their opponents. To the extent that they choose to engage in distortion and allow others to carry out smear campaigns on their behalf, they will contribute further to public distrust and to doubts about their personal character and integrity. –By Sissela Bok/The New York Times/January 25, 2012
Foot Note: Sissela Bok, a senior visiting fellow at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, is the author of, among other books, "Lying: Moral Choice in Private and Public Life."
No comments:
Post a Comment