| Political Lipservice
It seems to me that even though some of the presidential candidates can make very good speeches, and by and large can come across as very formidable minds, they do seem to sell themselves short when talking about some lesser issues.
Maybe that isn't so clear, but my point:
Is it possible that politicians cannot fully represent every one of their personal views, if the are to have a reasonable chance of being elected to office?
In other words, they must pretend to agree with the populous on most issues, except provide a contrast on one or two issues they decide are most important.
For example, a candidate might hide the fact they are an atheist, or a vegetarian, or pretend to be one or the other of pro-life or pro-choice, to get elected and allow themselves access to the decision making process of things like tackling climate change, or dealing properly with the Iraq war.
If a candidate presented themself being an iconoclast, regardless of how well justified, tested, and thought-through all their arguments are, they might, in essence sabotage their own campaign by trying to confront too many issues at once, and alienating most of the public.
In this sense, could it be understandable that the mainstream politicians only really pronounce their opinion on select issues, and largely conform to the shallow beliefs of the general populous on other issues?
Clearly most politicians need to play the politics game to get elected, so in many areas they do need to be dishonest. But can we forgive them of lies we suspect, acknowledging that they may just be trying to take the necessary actions to be able to influence the issues that matter most.
Thoughts? |