Presidential-Campaign Lying: Inexcusable

Last night, the second of the three Presidential Debates for 2008 aired. Like the first debate, there were no fireworks, no home runs, and no real difference was made in the campaign. I only recall one truly excellent answer (given by McCain on whether or not Russia would once again be an "Evil Empire"); there was much prevarication and demagoguery.

There was also a lot of lying. Several times during the night, one candidate would say, "John McCain's/Barack Obama's plan for health care/taxes/etc. does X, while my plan does Y." To which the other candidate would say, "Barack Obama's/John McCain's plan for health care/taxes/etc. does U while my plan does W." Clearly, one of them was not telling the truth or was distorting it. Most likely, both of them were, basically, lying.

This is inexcusable. For a whole host of reasons. In our day-to-day dealings with people, we demand, even if we don't always expect, honesty. We demand it of our children, we demand it of our friends, we demand it of our spouses. Honesty is prized. Why, then, do we tolerate it from our politicians? I hear people say all the time that they cannot/do not trust politicians. Political untruths have become a given and, even worse, are viewed as acceptable. Shown a bald-faced lie by one candidate or another, people merely shrug, rather than express indignation.

In past decades, politicians could get away with lying on the campaign trail and lying to audiences in televised, national debates. There was no effective way to fact check candidates' statements as they were being uttered and, even if it was known that a bald-faced lie had been uttered, no effective way to push that information out to the masses.

Today, televised lying should be impossible. With the Internet at our fingertips and the vast pool of knowledge shared by bloggers and the main-stream media, any falsehood uttered by a candidate should be immediately flagged and highlighted; posted in prominent places for all to see. It is truly ridiculous that the majority of Americans simply don't know when they've just been fed a lie.

Here's what I envision. In the next Presidential election, at every event a candidate attends, groups dedicated to fact checking political statements (like FactCheck.org) show up with fast Internet connections and massive screens and, in real-time, fact check the candidate's (or candidates') statements.

Imagine, in a debate format: John McCain claims that his idea to write down mortgages with government money is a new idea, all his own and, immediately, over his head, appears the fact check:

McCain proposed to write down the amount owed by over-mortgaged homeowners and claimed the idea as his own: “It’s my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal.” But the idea isn’t new. Obama had endorsed something similar two weeks earlier, and authority for the treasury secretary to grant such relief was included in the recently passed $700 billion financial rescue package.

(source: FactCheck.org)

Likewise, Barack Obama states that his health-care plan would lower premiums and, immediately, over his head, appears the fact check:

Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize.

(source: FactCheck.org)

It wouldn't take long for candidates to figure out that lying in such a context is absolutely useless and only serves to clearly paint them, in the eyes of the public, as the mockery of statesmanship they have already become.

Let's face it. In 2008, with the amount of information we have at our fingertips, that candidates can mislead voters through misrepresentation, mangled facts, and outright lies is simply inexcusable. It's about time someone threw this kind of nonsense under the bus.