Why do politicians flip flop and lie ?

5/11/2012

Why do politicians flip flop and lie ? Is it because this is an election year ? I've noticed

this more and more this year from Congress on down to the president. Why can' they be

truthful to the public or are they scared to death of the public , because they know we

as the public can put them out of a job in a heart beat...My opinion , what's yours ?

Cheers....Joe...

It is a game of lies! Politicians with a conscience usually get assassinated.
The Power Elite choose who they want in government, someone they can easily manipulate. The election process is an elaborate tradition played out to give the illusion of a people in control. But the people do have power and 'they' the Elite don't want the people to realize that!
So is it really odd that one gets to choose from a bunch of lying cheating politicians come election time? Not really! It's just the game! What would happen if no one voted? What if nobody played the game? Perhaps the people would realize they do have power after all!

Just my opinion of course.

Sometimes it is just about changing times. As time goes by and people grow (and hopefully we keep growing all our lives), perspective grows, and we see more, and understand more, than we once did, and since we can see a bigger picture, we - wisely - change our minds.

It isn't always about lies, every once and again, it's about enlightenment.

Just me.
Ann

My view is that too few people vote. When you see the people of other countries giving up their lives for the right to vote - and we just don't bother - or we pass laws to limit voting rights - we deserve what we put in office.

I agree with Ann regarding enlightenment as a piece of the picture. I am glad that I was not on Fox news every time I have changed my mind about something. In my younger years, I was very closed minded with strong moral judgments about others' behaviors, influence by a Southern Baptist and then Catholic religious experience.

Living and working in Europe, Asia and the Caribbean plus educational experiences in diverse states such as Idaho, California, Michigan and Florida I have seen the gamut of lifestyles and heard many opinions on multiple issues. I have changed my mind many, many times along the way. I do believe that I have moved to a more liberal or centrist position politically from starting as a staunch conservative.

Politicians are forced by handlers to have a set platform that will appeal to the voters they seek. Those voters have entrenched beliefs; thus, a politicians change in thought (a very healthy thing when it is personal, not designed to please voters) can be a death knell to a political career.

Politicians have one goal in a campaign: get elected. They believe in their own unique calling which justifies any behavior to get into office - to fulfill their purpose which may be very different from the campaign and may be totally funded my one or more special interests.

alj wrote:

It isn't always about lies, every once and again, it's about enlightenment.

Just me.
Ann

5/11/2012

Sorry to me they dazzle the public with their intellect

and dazzle them with their bullshit ! Right now I'm not

convinced by any congressmen or Presidential Candidate,

I have to sit down and write the pros and cons..They have

to stop making a career out of Washington....1 term 4 years,

that goes for Congress and President..Congress needs to loose

their benefits, pay as the public pays...

Cheers..Joe...

Joe,

As far as I'm concerned too many politicians are self serving jerks. They may go into it with all the right intentions, but once they are there it becomes, "Do whatever it takes to keep the job!"

You know how you can tell if a politician is telling a lie? His lips are moving!


"It isn't always about lies, every once and again, it's about enlightenment.
Just me."
Ann
That's a wonderful thought, but as you say, 'every once and again, it's about enlightenment', the rest of the time it's say whatever is going to get votes.

Politicians lie because we don't hold them accountable for doing so. Truth be told, most people don't want to be told the truth--they just want to feel good about themselves, have confidence in the future, and hear only "positive messages" from the (good looking, eloquent, dynamic, positive) people they elect to office.

Since neither the elected nor the electorate actually wants to tackle any of the hard issues of the day that require thoughtful planning, consensus building, hard work and sacrifice from all of us, we elect politicians who make empty promises and repeat equally empty (but catchy) slogans like some demented mantra for adoring crowds to yell back at them emphatically and with conviction. "Yes we can" is a perfect example. (Not to pick on Obama any more than any other career politician for he is no more and no less than that.) It gave us hope, made us feel good about ourselves and our future and made for a wonderful spiffy mantra. So did "change you can believe in." Articulating just what it is we can and will do, or precisely what needs to be changed, how we will go about changing it and what it will cost us are of no consequence. Moreover, it gets really boring when you get bogged down with details, facts, figures and things like, well, having to come up with a tangible plan that thoughtful people can point at, take apart or simply laugh at.

So politicians do exactly what we want them to do--give the appearance of being really busy solving the big issues of the day in between rounds of golf, fund raisers and sightseeing on the public's dime. And they blame the other party, naysayers and the troglodytes that simply refuse to get with the program for their inability to bring any meaningful change that anyone can believe in. And, of course, they blame their predecessors in office--must not forget them. Meanwhile they kick the can down the road while flashing a glorious smile and telling all of us that everything will be just fine as long as we re-elect them. Of course, we do just that.

People get the government they deserve. Whatever American exceptionalism may be, it is most assuredly not a "get out of stupid free" card.

5/12/2012

Victor..

BRAVO...........

You should run for office..

Cheers...Joe....

I'm not absolutely sure when Australia introduced compulsory voting. We lifted large slabs of our Constitution Act from the US Constitution, and we based other bits on perceived errors or faults: for example, our census provision was deliberately left a bit looser in the 1890s, because by the 1880s, the US was growing so fast that they couldn't process all the results before the next lot of results started flowing in (so Hollerith invented the punch card!).

Anyhow, somewhere along the way, and I'm pretty sure it isn't in our constitution, we brought in a system where all the voters have to register , and they all have to turn up on polling day. Once there, we still have the right to lodge an informal vote, but these are a small minority of the votes, and usual down to dumb voters, rather that informed voters.

(I have twice voted informal, and made my intent and discontent abundantly clear by giving all three candidates--in a system where we number them 1, 2 and 3-- a value of 10, and then inscribing the ballot paper "Politics is the last refuge of scoundrels". My wife calls me an extremist: she gives them a 3 each, and writes "A pox on all their houses!")

My assessment of the more usual informal vote is based on observation as a scrutineer at a number of elections where I and a scrutineer from the other main party worked over the informal votes in a couple of safe seats, where neither of us cared about challenging the vote, but we were very keen to see what made the informals tick. This was an abuse of the scrutineering process but a harmless one.

Anyhow, people have to show up, and most of them think they have to vote, so they do. The upshot, according to one of our brighter and more urbane conservative politicians, is that elections in Australia are won by courting the middle, while in the UK and the USA, they are won by appealing to the fringes. This is because you need to mobilise the extremists to get out and vote.

(That said, the bright chap is no longer the leader of the conservative party, and a rather rabid extremist has taken over, a fellow with all the charm of a ferret with a social disease. He gets on because the present government remind one of warthogs smeared in rancid whale fat. This is why I am known to sometimes write rude messages on the ballot paper.)

The bright, urbane bloke still hopes to get back in as leader, but while the incumbent foams at the mouth and spews hate, he has little chance. The result is that the Australian political scene has become more and more hateful, spiteful and filled with lies.

Driving forces in my view: it's the media cycle, the expectation that sound-bites will be delivered, served-up and by the time the other side steps up to the mark, the public has been distracted.

So they lie because they can--and because they can get away with it.

Politicians have one goal in a campaign: get elected. They believe in their own unique calling which justifies any behavior to get into office - to fulfill their purpose which may be very different from the campaign and may be totally funded my one or more special interests.[/quote]

I agree with DK's statement above. Getting elected is the goal and they will say whatever they think will win them the vote.

P. Macinnis wrote:

Quote :

Driving forces in my view: it's the media cycle, the expectation that sound-bites will be delivered, served-up and by the time the other side steps up to the mark, the public has been distracted.

Spot on, IMHO.

Ann

What a great discussion, including mandatory voter registration in Australia. I should really study Australia because I have always thought mandatory voter registration was a good thing and that showing up to vote - by mail or in person - as a mandatory act should be part of democracy. I did not know such a system was in place in Australia. I wonder if it creates more public input to the governing? Or is government still controlled by big money as in the U.S.?

5/12/2012

Here in the USA if you don't like the politicians , as a

protest you can write your name in , so please "VOTE"

for me....Thank You..

Cheers..Joe..

Although I agree with mandatory voting as I also feel mandatory I.D. cards would be of benefit, Americans feel that goes against their ideas of freedom. They want to be free of obligatory matters, i.e., the military draft and healthcare choices, but change their opinion when they are personally affected. I don't think there is any govermental dictate that would satisfy everyone. The lawmakers and our representatives are elected to serve the people, however it appears they are self-serving. How to change that? No easy solution. Money talks and those with the most money are on the receiving end.

I think all voting slips should have a none of the above box to tick.
A voter then is not forced to opt out of the vote because the people up for election are not worth them voting.

Then the votes count as a vote of no confidence and would force these parties to rethink their Election campaign. More people would turn out to vote and a truer picture of public confidence would emerge.

It would only take one failed campaign for them perhaps to get their act together.

God idea, David.

Ann

D. K. Christi asks of Australia: "is government still controlled by big money as in the U.S.?"

To a considerable extent, money speaks. It buys advertising. But in the US sense where only a multi-millionaire can rise to the top, no.

Mind you, in the country that spawned Rupert Murdoch, that is necessarily a limited "no". We have several obscenely rich mining billionaires who do nothing at all to further Australian society, and one of them is currently trying to buy herself a stake in the media as a way of getting people to fawn upon her. Another billionaire has just declared that he will seek preselection for a seat in our House of Representatives--this, as the name implies, is the lower house, but it is the centre of power in our system.

The would-be MP had announced the previous week that he was planning to build a new version of the Titanic, that would really be unsinkable. You may deduce from this that not a lot of people regard him highly unless they are his mendicants and/or hangers-on.

He may have grown rich with his digging-up, but he isn't very smart, and it would be quite amusing to watch him being shredded by MPs who have grown sleek in their own parties' Piranha School of Deportment. You need to keep in mind that our executive comes from within Parliament, and by tradition and convention, the Prime Minister must be in the lower house. It's too long since I read our constitution, but I don't think the PM is mentioned in it. Every lower house MP wants to be PM.

Most Australians are entirely unfamiliar with the constitution, a few can cite sections 51 and 116, and a mere handful have ever read the constitutional convention debates. I fit the second and third categories, but I'm weird.

Concerning the title to this thread, "Why do politicians flip flop and lie?"
It seems that people don't want to hear the truth and rather believe a lie. Lies often feel good. Doing what is right hurts. Even when there is no easy fix to problems, they still look for an easy way out. Tell people there is an easy way and they buy into it.

I wonder what would happen if elected politicians were held accountable for their campaign promises, and if they failed to do what they promised, they would be required to resign.

But Abe, if the lie is of the form "my opponent will, if elected, prowl the streets at night, seizing and eating your first-born", what then? If the opponent is elected and fails to eat your first-born, whose fault is that?

While conceding that there may be a tiny amount of hype in that example, many lies take that general form. Then again, it isn't hard to take a promised legislative program and deck it out with enough nasties to force others (not you, the Leader) to block it.

What the world really needs is a benign despot. This position is now open to applicants, and the head of the queue is just behind me.

My only policy: each year, the people get to elect three politicians (the lovable despot is exempt, of course) who will be taken out and chained to a rock for the vultures to feed on them. This will discourage everybody from putting their heads too high above the parapet, and the number three guarantees that at least one from each side will be disposed of each year (exhaustive preferential voting will apply). If that is too extreme, the three chosen ones could be locked up on a small island surrounded by shark-infested and storm-riven waters.

peter
who gave up politics many years ago because he couldn't
take himself as seriously as those who stayed in the game.

Friends have been arguing politics as long as there have been political topics to argue. It seems inherent in having the power to vote, especially when it involves taking sides and forming parties:

In 1852
Jake lay on the blanket with his head in Karin’s lap, reading the words of their fellow Texan, Sam Houston, from a folded newspaper: “There are but six men belonging to the Whig party in Texas, one of whom was a horse thief - another a black-leg - a third a land grabber, and the other three were mere tools and understrappers of the first three named...”
“Is that damned thing still around? It’s a rehash from the last election,” snapped Daniel, who lay leaning on his elbow next to Maria, who sat near a food basket, putting away some of the leftover ham that had been part of the sumptuous picnic.
“I don’t know, Daniel,” Jake drawled, “I can’t help wonderin’, which one are you, the horse thief or the land grabber.”
“According to our current governor and his cohorts, they could both be either one of us.”
“Except it clearly says ‘Whig’ Daniel.” Jake pointed to the paper, “and we both know that I’m a Democrat.”
“Who ought to know better. Karin,” he added, turning to the pretty blonde, “haven’t you been able to talk sense to him?”
“Daniel,” Karin smiled, “what has a woman to do with politics?”
“You would, if this country had sense enough to allow you to vote.”
“Well, we can agree on that one, anyway,” Jake broke in. “Look, Daniel, before this country became a state, politics were simple: You supported Sam Houston or you didn’t.”
“And then Sam chose political clout over philosophy. That’s why I could never be a politician. You have to sell your soul to get votes.”
“And without votes, you don’t get elected, and if you don’t get elected, what good can you do?...


and 1858
“He’s going to lose this election, Jake.”
“This is Sam Houston we’re talking about, Daniel.”
“He played around with those Know-nothings and the American Party when he supported Dickson in the last election. American party,” Daniel shook his head. “White Americans, they mean. They call themselves ‘native-born’ but deny the rights of the real natives here, along with any immigrants who didn’t come from England.”
“He didn’t have a whole lot of choices.”
“Jake, your son is half German. I, your friend, am half Comanche, and my wife is whole Spanish. If the American Party takes hold here, what will that mean for all of us?”
“I agree, and if I thought Houston felt that way, he wouldn’t have my support.”
“Sam is being Sam. He will back whoever will promise him the most votes.”
“We have to get elected if we are going to hold a public office, Daniel.”
“I didn’t see you having any trouble in the last election here in Sandy Creek. The town was pretty quick to show you their support without you having make promises you didn’t plan on keeping.”
“I ran for County Sheriff, Daniel. What other fool was willing to run against me.”
“That’s not the point.”
“That’s beside the point and you know it. How about you? I don’t hear you going out and campaigning for Hardin Runnels.”
“Hell, no. He’d have Calhoun’s policies overrunning the state. Secession would be a given, and we would be at war for certain.”
“So, Daniel, who do you support?”
“You know I’ll be voting for Houston - for governor,” he added emphatically, and then, even more emphatically, “this election. And I’ll do what I can to get a bigger following for the Republican Party by the next presidential election.”
“And you’ll have as much success as you had with the Whig’s. Democrats run this state, Daniel, whether we like it or not.”
“One quarter of the population should not make policies for the other seventy-five percent of us.”
“They have the means; they have the power.”
Daniel shook his head again. “Extremists - on both ends - are running this country, and they’re running it straight into the ground.”
“No argument there. It looked, for a while after 1850 and the Compromise, that we were working toward a solution, but that ended last year.”
“When Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, they threw the whole country into chaos. Democrats, Whigs, both split on the slavery issue, Calhoun and the Southern Democrats managing to take control of the one while the other faltered.”
“And Sam’s opposition to it has damaged his chances here in Texas. The Union is in real trouble.”
“I find myself thinking more in terms of when the war comes, rather than if. There will be some hard decisions to be made, Jake, especially here in the hills.”
“All I know is that I can’t fight for any man’s right to own another. The South is intent on pushing its citizens into taking that stand. I won’t be able to stand with them, that’s certain.”
Daniel nodded. He and his friend might argue fine points, but neither of them questioned where the other stood on the issue of slavery. The South had harnessed itself to this evil, and was bent on forcing it on to the rest of the country. The real battle, they both knew, was between the old agricultural world and the new industrial one, and they both knew which would eventually win. They were both southerners, aware that the world they had grown up in was no longer viable, and they differed only, when they differed, in their ideas about how to get through the chaos of these changing times.

Have times really changed in the past 150 years?

Ann

Interesting Ann. I like your story. And to answer your question, no it hasn't changed too much with the exception the super rich. The average man can squock about injustice, but is powerless to affect change unless there are enough of them that band together and force change. That can be done at the voting booth provided that voting is fair. Florida is an example of how corrupt voting can be.

I see a strong parallel between today's "super rich" and the antebellum southern planter. I came to that conclusion when I started researching the politics of the 1850's in the United States in order to get a better idea of what would be happening to Daniel and Maria during that same time period, and saw that their situation was another case of an elite few believing that they ought to have the power to control society. From what I have read so far, that concept of the Elite seems to have developed on a parallel with the concept of democracy, as a counter point. If you push it further back, you can find similar ideas coming out during the late Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, when the agricultural world was first being challenged by science. Those advances led us into the Industrial Age, and to another period of chaos brought about by the dissolution of an old paradigm. The developing electronic/digital/information age is having the same effect today.

Change breeds fear, and fear breeds greed and corruption, out of a need to maintain control, power, and the status quo.

Spiraling cycles.

Ann

Mandatory voting? I'd rather re-introduce a poll tax AND a literacy requirement as prerequisites to exercising the privilege to vote. (Just kidding--really.) I missed only one election since my 18th birthday--and that was because my absentee ballot arrived late due to a mail glitch. But if I were forced to vote I'd cast my ballot for Goofy. Come to think of it, I may do that anyway. If you're gonna get Goofy anyway, might as well go for the real thing.

I like the way you think, Victor. Goofy it is.