Can an honest man be a successful politician?

[Mano]

Our current President lied about reasons for going to war (among other things). The previous President could not keep it in his pants, and couldn't tell the truth about it afterwards (among other things). The 2 administrations before that lied to congress in the Iran/Contra affair (among other things). In fact, the only President during my lifetime (I was born in 1967) that I would consider an honest man was Carter, and his administration is widely considered a failure.

So I pose this question: is it possible for an honest man to succeed at the highest levels in politics in this day and age, or are the dealings with special interest groups, money raising, party affiliations, etc. such that in order to succeed you must resort to dishonest means? I value the opions of several posters here, and am very interested in your points of view.

[HDPM]

I actually think it is possible, but it hasn't been tried at the highest levels. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Perhaps I am naive and wrong tho.

BTW, if it happens I think it will be a libertarian. Rs and Ds have no coherent political philosophy so they get tripped up and decide each single issue separately - so they feel they have to pander to various aspects of their constituency. Thus they hide their views or spin them differently depending on who they talk to. If the party gets going a libertarian might have a chance. It is harder for president though than for senator or something.; Because you have to cater to such a wide range of people if you run for pres. it is hard to be anything but bland publically and machiavellian behind the scenes.

[John Cole]

Would an honest libertarian oppose a standing army?

[HDPM]

Not sure but probably.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'm a libertarian and I absolutely favor a standing army. Not having one jeopardizes national defense.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Jimmy Carter is an honest man. He was also a lousy President.

[Mano]

Do you think his failure as a President was at least in part due to his honesty? Would he have been better able to get things done if he compromised his ideals in order to get things done and produce a greater good (is a Machaevelian approach neccessary)?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

It's a complex question. In theory, since I don't believe it's government's place to be a proactive creator of a "greater good", I don't know how to answer your question.

I think to be an effective President you have to be a bit of a bastard. I don't think you can be a nice guy. Maybe Carter was hamstrung by the memory of Vietnam, but he totally botched the Iran situation.

[HDPM]

But would you have it do the things we have it do? I doubt it. I also tend to the libertarian and favor a standing army of some sort, but I can also see how a pure libertarian would not want one. I am fine with a volunteer/mercenary national defense however, since we cannot reasonably expect the rest of the world to be rational. In a truly free world nobody would really need armies I suppose.

[MMMMMM]

I see nothing on the website of the Libertarian Party (www.lp.org) opposing a standing army, and it is clear that defending America from foreign attack is part of Libertarian principles.

(excerpt)

"Libertarian foreign policy: Defending America (not the world)
BY MICHAEL TANNER

In the aftermath of the Cold War, the purpose of America's defense and foreign policy should be to defend the United States, not to act as the world's policeman. Europe and Japan no longer face a Soviet threat and should be expected to bear the cost and responsibility for their own defense. At the same time, the United States should strenuously resist any attempt to coopt U.S. forces into United Nations controlled "peace keeping" efforts. This more realistic defense policy would enable the United States to dramatically reduce its defense spending.

Certainly America's defense capability should be strong enough to defend the United States. However, the United States now accounts for 37% of all the world's military spending. Another 30% of world military spending is by countries in Western Europe along with Japan, South Korea, and Israel -- nations which pose no conceivable threat to the United States." (end excerpt)

http://www.lp.org/issues/national-defense.html

Also, given that the U.S. Constitution specifies a role of the federal government as providing for the common defense, I can't see why anyone would object to a standing army on Constitutional grounds.


Here is what the Libertarian Party has to say about taxes (I'm noting especially the focus on protecting our Constitutional rights and defending us from foreign attack):

(excerpt)

"Libertarians believe that if government's role were limited to protecting our lives, rights and property, then America would prosper and thrive as never before. Then the federal government could concentrate on protecting our Constitutional rights and defending us from foreign attack. A federal government that did only those two things, could do them better and at a small fraction of the cost.

How Can We Cut Taxes?

Instead of tending to the basics, government has grown into a bloated conglomerate of political services that gets larger every year -- with no end in sight.

For example, politicians spend millions of dollars to urge people not to smoke -- while spending more millions to subsidize tobacco farmers. They send billions overseas for foreign aid -- while the federal deficit swells. They spend millions to subsidize public art -- while working families struggle to pay their taxes.

Politicians also run trains, bail out savings and loans, construct houses, sell insurance, print books, and build basketball courts -- you name it! But the fact is, every service supplied by the government can be provided better and cheaper by private business.

Privatize And Cut Taxes

All over the world, governments are busy selling airlines, power plants, housing, and factories to private owners. Where inefficient government bureaucrats lost money and squandered tax dollars, hard-working private owners now make profits and create new jobs. Why can't we do the same thing in America?

Defend America: Cut Taxes

Military expenses are over $250 billion a year! A large percentage of this is spent overseas to defend wealthy countries like Germany and Japan -- who then wallop us in international trade. Let's take them off military welfare. We can defend America better and save at least $100 billion a year in taxes.

Stop Bailing Out Industry

No one has the right to cover his losses at taxpayer expense -- and yet wealthy corporations demand exactly that. The federal government has bailed out railroads, banks, and other corporations with your tax dollars. This must stop!

Replace Welfare: Cut Taxes

The bulk of your welfare tax dollars goes to pay the handsome salaries of well-educated welfare workers. The poor get little from government welfare except meager handouts and a cycle of despair. Let's get government out of the charity business. Private charities and groups do a better and more efficient job of helping the truly needy get back
on their feet.

Why An Income Tax?

Before 1913, federal income taxes were rare and short-lived. America became the most prosperous nation on earth. The U.S. Government did not try to police the world or play "nanny" to everyone from cradle to grave. People took responsibility for themselves, their families, and their communities. That is how the founders of America thought it should be. And it worked. It can again!" (end excerpt)

http://www.lp.org/issues/cut-taxes.html

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'm a libertarian, but not an isolationist. I don't think we can be truly free and not have a global military presence.

Markets are global, resources are global, thus the protection of liberty must be global.

I fully understand that my beliefs on this topic put me at odds with the LP's outlook.

[David Steele]

what was so bad about the Iran thing? Everyone lived and no war over it. If it happened under Bush thousands would die all over the world.

D.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

what was so bad about the Iran thing?

An unprovoked attack on the US embassy followed by the kidnapping of US citizens.

If it happened under Bush thousands would die all over the world.

That would have been a good thing. The problem with the Bush administration is it didn't act swiftly or brutally enough after 9-11. Tehran (or some other Al Qaeda city) should have been vaporized on 9-12-01 as an object lesson to these terrorist scum.

[David Steele]

An unprovoked attack on the US embassy followed by the kidnapping of US citizens.
I realize what it was, but I was only referring to the response, I don't think any US Gov. forsaw the events and covered them up.


Tehran (or some other Al Qaeda city) should have been vaporized on 9-12-01
Which are the Al Qaeda cities? I am not sure what that would accomplish, certainly the actual terrorists would be delighted and would not be hurt. The US would have very serious PR problems but then they got that anyway.
D.

[JTrout]

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I don't think any US Gov. forsaw the events

I think they did. The Marine Guards laid their weapons down when the first attackers came over the wall. That tells me they were under orders not to engage. Without specific orders to the contrary, they would have massacred the attackers.

Which are the Al Qaeda cities?

I used this phrase to provoke a discussion. I think the Islamist world has created a perfect foil that they think allows them to attack the West with impunity. A shadow, super-national military that wears the uniform of no nation-state, but is funded by the powers that be in all Islamist countries.

They are banking on the fact that the West will adhere to its normal rules of engagement; a weakness in their mind, as is our belief that each individual life is sacred, a belief that they do not share. They believe they can overcome us by working outside the rules. We need to change the rules.

I am not sure what that would accomplish

I realize my response was hyperbolic, but I believe a nuclear strike would have accomplished a great deal. In 1945, Japan swore they would fight and die to the last man, woman and child hand to hand to prevent an Allied occupation. When shown what that really meant, this proud, disciplined, warrior culture caved. Many, many lives were saved on both sides, and years of fighting were avoided, *and* the possibility of building a future where Japan could be an economic power became a reality.

Would this work in the Islamist world? Who knows?

The enemy is intansigent and wants to take the world back into the dark ages. I have no problem supporting any actions that fights an enemy that vows a world run by Sharia.

As a libertarian, I believe that the initiation of force is morally wrong, but that in defense, the use of overwhelming retaliatory force is a moral imperative.

I don't want to turn the world over to a 21st century Inquisition.

[XlgJoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone lived and no war over it

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any hostages died, but wasn't there a botched rescue attempt where two helicopters collided killing military personel. It's been a while and maybe I am confusing that with some other incident.

[brad]

dont have time to read other replies but i just want to say please quit saying carter a saint-like, his admin guilty of genocide in east timor. (they admit it and are proud of it!!)