Could advances in electronics reduce honesty among politicians? That’s a long shot, and I’m unqualified to give a definitive answer. But consider this:
Political dishonesty was rampant last week. President George W. Bush sent a budget to Congress in which 22 cents out of every dollar to be spent must be borrowed. This is true even though inevitable expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan are excluded. Bush also asserted the budget could be balanced in a few years if Congress would only exercise “fiscal discipline.”
Democratic frontrunner John Kerry has repeatedly blamed the Bush administration for health care cost increases and implied they are the result of greed by “HMOs and pharmaceutical companies” that receive special treatment.
Both men were fundamentally dishonest with the American people. The Bush administration made deliberate fiscal choices that produced current deficits. No serious economist believes economic growth and “fiscal discipline” from Congress are going to close these deficits in a few years. Instead, they are likely to get far worse.
Kerry knows that drug spending and HMO and insurance company administrative costs and profits are responsible for only a small part of health care cost increases. The two categories account for less than one-fifth of all health care spending. Drug prices have increased, but so have billings by hospitals and other providers, largely because consumers want more — and more expensive — treatment procedures.
The cheap opportunism Bush and Kerry displayed this week hurts rather than advances our nation’s common good. So why do these men engage in it?
The answer is that U.S. voters reward candidates who lie about fundamental choices our society faces. Candidates who display blunt honesty about government services and related tax levels or about health services and related costs don’t get very far in politics.
Cynics may assert it has always been thus. Candidates have told voters what they wanted to hear since time immemorial.
Think, though, of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. Consider the Federalist Papers of 1788-1789 and responses to them. In both cases, prominent politicians detailed fundamental choices our society faced. There was little cheap rhetoric, no spin-able sound bites. Deeply reasoned argument was the rule.
No contemporary politician will venture similar honesty and insight on fiscal policy or health care issues. Why not?
Television, the personal computer and the Internet, among other innovations, have reduced our willingness to spend time listening to reasoned argument. The public demands sound bites and loves cheap shots. Who today would listen to a three-hour debate on any specific topic?
Thousands of people traveled hours to hear Lincoln and Douglas analyze slavery. We click to another channel when televised candidate “debates” slow for an instant.
Technology changes culture, and culture shapes the political process. Fast, “hot” media lead us to bad decisions and a poorer, less just society. That is an external cost of technological innovation.
© 2004 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.