Over the course of the three most recent administrations, a significant question posed to each president is whether or not honesty is a prioritized policy — if honesty is just as adhered to as policies both foreign and domestic, economic and social. Is honesty the best policy? Or perhaps better said: is there a commitment to honest communication by the White House?
Questions of honesty plagued Pres. Clinton most after his moral mischief with Monica Lewinsky. Pres. Bush (43) was dogged with the dilemma after no weapons of mass destruction were found within Iraq. Pres. Obama finds himself as the current target of questions of intentional mistruth.
Let me not suggest that we are able to ascertain 100% truth. Save for Clinton’s rhetorically silly “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” — and let’s face it — such was in regard to personal behavior, not government policy — the Intramuralist does not believe from our limited vantage points that we can always discern the deception in our leaders. I believe we witness it far too often in the White House wordsmiths (woe to you, Jay Carney), but our perspective is limited. As a nation, we are also far too gullible, naive, or blinded to ignore obvious deception when the man/woman in charge adheres to similar political beliefs.
Friends, let me make a strong statement. I care more about the integrity of the leader than about similar political beliefs. If honesty is not an administration’s policy, then they will lose respect from this semi-humble current events observer. I believe that a leader is lacking some degree of integrity if they resort to lying and deception. I also understand that there exist times when the truth cannot be shared in totality, especially when national security may be at stake. However, simply because the truth cannot be transparently shared does not mean it’s ethical to be replaced by a lie. The end does not — and will not — ever justify the means.
As noted, Pres. Obama has found himself as the current target of ethical questions. Is he being honest with us? As we watch the events unfold and the statements revised regarding the release of five terrorists for one deserting soldier, questions are intensifying as to whether Obama lied to us about the move and the motive. Allow me a concise bottom line: we can’t tell. We cannot ascertain motive or mistruth.
I must acknowledge, however, that there was at least one day when I unfortunately knew this President’s mistruth was intentional and clear. It wasn’t regarding Bergdahl, Benghazi, nor even the IRS. It was about an issue that speaks deeper to my heart — baseball — an issue I semi-humbly believe I know better than our current President…
Yes, I know baseball. I kid you not. I love it! There was a time when I could name every starting player on every Major League team. What a joy it was to be a diehard fan of the Big Red Machine! Almost 40 years later, my big brother and I can still recite that lineup from heart… Rose, Griffey, Morgan, Perez, Bench, Foster, Concepcion, and Geronimo… I can still name most the entire bench and pitching staff. Similarly, Obama has claimed to be a devout Chicago White Sox fan, often publicly donning his black and white cap. He has used the team as a means of relating to ordinary Americans. Joining the Washington Nationals’ press box a few summers ago, Obama was casually asked about his favorite team: “Who was one of your favorite White Sox players growing up?”
Obama could not answer. He stammered much, saying, “Ya know… uh… I, I thought that uh, ya know, the truth is that a lot of the Cubs I liked, too, but uh, I did not become a Sox fan until I moved to Chicago. Because I uh, ya know, I was growing up, uh, in Hawaii.” Ordinary Americans who claim to be devout fans can name at least one beloved player. Obama could name no one.
“Honesty is not the best policy. It is the only policy”… at least it should be… for each of us.
Respectfully…
AR
I agree with your “strong statement.” I care more about integrity as well. Of late, we hear so much in the media about lies that it seems (to me, anyway) that we’ve forgotten the difference between telling a lie and being wrong. A person of great integrity can be wrong. But to knowingly lie, even and especially under oath, shows disdain for the people you are supposed to serve/ represent and a gaping hole where integrity should reside. It is a threat to the well-being of our culture and the future of our nation. Perhaps lying, a lack of integrity, should be considered the “biggest threat” we face, as opposed to climate change or terrorism – well, maybe that’s going a little too far. Or is it?
What might be the deeper issue is the “ease” of lying due to the lack of consequences. When young and I lied (a simple lie such as I did not take candy from my sister’s Easter basket), the consequences were swift, measurable, and climaxed by having to face the person I lied to with my confession and request for forgiveness. Now lying is couched in modern language as “mis-spoken”, “ill-informed”, “un-intentional” and “I did not” . I say a lie is a lie, a hurt is a hurt, and my trust is not easily re-established.
I don’t know if W. really thought there were WMD’s or not. My sense is that he did, though perhaps he was mislead. I think Clinton in his lawyer-speak somehow thought the way he crafted his words were in some legal sense technically not untrue. But I am convinced that the current administration considers the untruth to be a completely acceptable weapon in its crusade where the ends – whatever they are – justify the means. Including being a faux fan of a team for which you cannot name a single player (like Driesen, Armbruster, Gullett, Billingham, Borbon, Eastwick & Macanany).