Owning up

BEIJING – Around the age when we begin to ask where babies and presidents come from, we begin on a track of knowledge that eventually stalls in the realization that politicians are sometimes less than straightforward.

Curiously enough, no one seems to ask why this is. Of course this observation is correct, but if the national commentary on the election is at all representative of what people really think, a politician who would only answer our prayers and give definite answers would surely be elected. The fact that no one chooses to do so indicates a problem with us, not them.

But then again, consider how we use the information we already have.

Any newspaper can supply you with plenty of evidence. You know the article you read about the legislation a candidate voted for eight years ago, in a different time with a myriad of different contributing factors, done when the candidate (God help him) might have held different viewpoints?

Chances are the writer turned it into a contrived, poorly thought out treatise on why the candidate in question (and everyone in his party) are roundly unfit for office, and perhaps even for life on earth.

After all, what passes for solid logic in an election year undergoes far less scrutiny than in other times. Writers go so far as to write short columns on why certain political philosophies are simply wrong.

In a more sensible year, people might remember that one’s approach to taxation or prison reform depends on the circumstance and value of equity versus efficiency, but for a few months every election year, the gates at Delphi open and partisan oracles give definite rulings on unanswerable questions.

I can only hope that next, they’ll settle a bet and decide once and for all which came first: the chicken or the egg.

To answer a question directly is to tie oneself inextricably to an imperfect real world and to suddenly be held responsible for the simple truth that there are sometimes hard choices and unfortunate circumstances. If commentators can’t or won’t digest the truth reasonably, it’s better the candidates become ethereal, unbound by the impossible criteria set before them.

Of course, politicians will have to make actual decisions eventually, but better those decisions not be misunderstood and held against them until the job is irrevocably theirs.

The average voter isn’t stupid – far from it. He’s just biased and is terrible at putting things into perspective. He reads articles written by people who only cater to partisanship, who do a terrible job examining policy and are worse still at putting things in perspective. If a president were to try and feed these people the truth, they’d just bite off his hand.

If we truly were voters who cared more about policy and experience, that’s what we’d be pitched. So when we see pandering where honesty should be, we should ask ourselves why dishonesty works so well. We should wonder if maybe the only path towards accountable candidates is responsible citizens.

Now that would be some straight talk.