My first SUMMER POST (concerning deception in politics) generated some thoughtful responses, and I'd like to pursue this further based on your comments.
Several of you concluded that telling the truth can hurt a candidate's chances for election, and that knowing the whole truth might in some cases be traumatic for the public. Why, in "the world's greatest democracy", should this be ? You will enjoy two short opinion-editorials on the subject:
The Perils of Honesty in Politics by Ezra Klein, who cites journalist Michael Kinsley's principle that "a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."
The Truth About Honesty by Joan Vennochi, who is hopeful that American voters are finally ready for the truth, and claims that "truth telling does seem more likely to occur in the Oval Office if it begins on the campaign trail."
Political satire often gets to the heart of the matter, and (if you haven't already) you should check out JibJab's latest video Time for Some Campaignin'.
Consider these questions:
How much truth can the American public handle? How much do they deserve?
What issues are the presidential candidates tiptoeing around? (Are you following the campaign? Whether or not you will be eligible to vote in November, you have a stake in the election.)
Each candidate has been accused of changing position on certain issues. What issues are they?
What makes a "good" politician?
Finally, is there a better way of choosing an American President? It takes well over 100 million dollars to run a viable Presidential campaign, in which it seems advantageous to avoid the truth (which is often distorted and reduced to sound bites and photo ops). I think that this course has to do with inventing the future, and here's your challenge to invent a new way of selecting our national leader.
Wow, give it a try. I'm looking forward to hearing from you.