Pants on Fire: An Angry Call to End Campaign Deception

I´m registered as an independent, so I have no democratic or republican affiliation, affinity, or preference. You are invited to shoot holes in this very unrealistic proposal/call to stop rampant lying, negative campaigning, and smear tactics by presidential candidates. We currently have a structure that encourages exaggeration and lying. How´s that you ask? The structure encourages it because if one lie or exaggeration about a political opponent goes without a counter-lie, then the original offender likely jumps somewhat in electability (polls, popularity, perceived leadership quality, etc.), even if the lie is not true. Accusations presented in a bold posture resonate with the public.

I´ll get right to the point: smear and deception was extremely high in the 2008 primaries and general election campaigns and it´s time for it to stop. I´ve been watching it for decades now and the American people deserve better. I don´t believe it will stop by popular demand—it must stop by mandate, with serious and grave consequences for violators. I don´t purport to know a damn thing about politics, but I´m somewhat well-versed as a professional in the field of human behavior—and the behavior I saw this campaign season was abhorrent. The problem is that for the average Joe six-pack (my apology—I couldn´t resist), it´s hard to tell who to believe and who not to believe. Wouldn´t it be much easier to select a candidate if we knew they were speaking the truth? Time for some Q&A:

Q: Why would a politician deceive or lie about themselves or an opponent?

A: To get a leg up. The general population doesn´t have time to fact check, for example, after a televised debate between candidates. Even if the media does the fact-checking for the American public, many people can only find time to watch a few debates, but don´t have time to wait and check on the real answer—meaning the candidate essentially gets away with it. So people make candidate decisions based on how well the candidate convinces the public to believe in the assertion(s) rather than on the truth. But if there was a way for the public to know the truth, it would likely sway the candidates into being considerably more honest.

Q: What can be done?

A: Implement a fact-checking system that is nationally recognized as the final authority on truth-finding regarding candidate claims about themselves and opponents.

Q: Whom will we entrust to do the fact-checking?

A: A committee of, say, five or seven unbiased, neutral, independently-affiliated people who have absolutely no stake in the election. Folks from factcheck.org could play a key role. But the idea of having partisan spinners appear in front of the media to persuade viewers and listeners is analogous to a football game where the offensive and defensive units approach the scrimmage line, only to beat each other up. We know what the partisan spinners are going to say—so the Committee should be comprised of people whose only mission is to reveal the truth.

Q: What will the penalty be for violation?

A: If it is unanimously determined by the Committee that a candidate´s claim(s) is (are) an outright lie, then the candidate must drop out of the race. They´re permanently eliminated. Finished. Done. Over. Done over. I realize this is an extreme penalty, but the signal has to be strong enough to invoke absolute fear on the part of the candidate considering a campaign lie. A lie translates into immediate expulsion. Statements that fall into the category of "misleading" are governed by a "three strikes and you´re out" policy.

Q: Who will replace the guilty candidate?

A: If the party has a nominee, the person placing second is the replacement. Example: if Barack Obama were found guilty of a lie, then Hillary Clinton replaces him. If it occurs during the primary, the guilty candidate simply drops out with no replacement since there are so many others still competing.

Q: What are the long-term benefits of campaign truthfulness?

A: Better candidates will begin running for office. People with a high degree of class and character who have previously refused to expose themselves and their families to campaign smut will begin announcing candidacy.

Q: With this new approach, how likely is it that we´ll see the same proliferation of lying?

A: Very unlikely.

Q: How many potential problems can be found in this proposal?

A: TNTC (too numerous to count).

Q: How realistic is this or any other idea to correct campaign lying?

A: Not very.

With this reform, imagine how enjoyable it would be to watch and listen to a presidential debate, speech, or interview. I am sick to my stomach that the public tolerates lying and smear tactics in campaigns. A system needs to be in place that does severe and irreparable damage to a candidate who engages in lying. This kind of crap dramatically increases the chance of an inferior candidate winning an election. I would love for someone to come up with a better proposal—I just want this crap to stop. Can you tell I´m angry?

Bryan Farha is a professor who is fed up with the nastiness of Presidential campaigning, and can be contacted at bfarha@okcu.edu.