In lies we trust
“In war, truth is the first casualty,” Aeschylus, a playwright of ancient Greece, is said to have remarked some 2,500 years ago. When the stakes are high, it is in the interest of some to lie and others to believe.
Perhaps this wartime indifference to truth explains candidate and voter behavior this election. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are deeply, habitually, horrendously dishonest (thank goodness for adverbs) and yet both will receive millions of votes in November. Indeed voters have overlooked politicians’ lies in the past, but this is the first truly post-truth election, at least in my lifetime. Truth simply doesn’t matter.
Consider the first presidential debate last Monday when a record 84 million people tuned into the debate. NBC fact checkers found 17 misstatements by Trump and two by Clinton. Interestingly, The Wall Street Journal found moderator Lester Holt also misspoke once. Other fact checkers were slightly more or slightly less charitable, but the candidates’ fact-to-fib ratio was about the same in other analyses. That is, Trump was less truthful overall.
Did it matter? Two scientifically conducted polls (as opposed to easily manipulated online polls) by CNN and YouGov showed that Clinton won the debate in the eyes of a majority of debate watchers. A focus group in Pennsylvania conducted by well-known Republican pollster Frank Luntz broke three to one for Clinton. A poll by Gravis Marketing in Florida had similar results. This poll also asked participants if the debate had changed their minds about whom they would vote for in November. Ninety-five percent said it did not.
Over the past few elections, the first debate has not significantly impacted polls overall or the election results. Debate watchers likely tune in to cheer on their candidate, not to assess his or her policies or character. At most, style, not accuracy, is on trial.
So why doesn’t truth matter? In the minds of many voters, power matters more. The behemoth federal government has a $3.8 trillion budget and is involved in nearly every facet of American life. The executive administers federal law and, in too many cases, makes law through regulatory overstep. The president chooses Supreme Court justices who interpret cases that have a direct bearing on our ability to exercise our natural rights to property, free speech, religious expression, due process, privacy and self-protection. The president is also commander in chief and directs foreign policy often without requisite congressional approval for international agreements or armed engagement. The president has enormous power, far more power than was ever intended by the founders to be in the hands of one individual.
Many Americans are willing to overlook significant moral and ethical offenses in heir candidate to ensure that power remains in control of the party they feel advances their policies and protects them from the actions of the other party.
Should Americans have to choose between the integrity of their leaders and their way of life? Should an election seem like war?
Ideally the primary system would produce honest candidates. These are not ideal times. So let’s be practical. We should reduce the size and scope of the federal government by returning power and authority to state and local governments and to the people themselves. We should disperse power so that no one election carries such risks or rewards. We should disperse responsibility so that no one elected position is so important that Americans are willing to sacrifice truth to get him or her elected.
Reduce the stakes and truth will regain its saliency. Krista Kafer (tokrista@msn.com) is co-host of “Kelley and Kafer” airing 4 to 7 p.m. on 710 KNUS and a professor of communication at Colorado Christian University.