The world will be in terrible shape if none of the world's political leaders trusted the leadership and counsel of the President of the United States? And if Mitt Romney is elected president, how could they know which Romney to believe, on which days to believe him or what questions to ask him that will elicit the truth?
Many years ago, I shared either in a letter or column a question that had occurred to me at a somewhat younger age: Which is worse not to trust anyone or not to be trusted by anyone?
I still haven't figured it out. Can you imagine, because of a lack of your spouse's trust, not being to go anywhere without your spouse being at your side? And can you imagine, because of a lack of your trust, your spouse not being able to go anywhere unless you were by your spouse's side? Which would worse? In one sense, the Democratic and Republican parties are a dysfunctional American couple that can't trust each other and increasingly are not trusted by anybody else.
In that piece on trust, I also may have shared another lying experience.
One summer while enrolled in a mathematics laboratory course at the University of Minnesota, the lab assistant challenged the class with a problem: There was a fork a the end of a road, with one of the roads leading to a town where everybody told the truth all the time. The other road led to a town where all of the people lied all of the time. A visitor approaches the fork, seeking the town of truth-tellers, but does not know which road to take. Fortunately, there is a man at the fork from one of the towns. The problem: What question can be asked that will cause the man at the fork to give the correct direction?
We had overnight to think about the problem. But nobody had the answer, which was: Ask him what he would have answered if asked for the directions yesterday. The liar, having to lie about what he would have said yesterday, tells the truth today.
Mitt Romney is a man at the fork in the road, except, at one time or other, he has live in both towns. What question needs to be asked of Mitt Romney depends on where you want to go and where he lives at the time. Asking him where he lives won't work because that changes from day to day--sometimes even from questioner to questioner.
In Massachusetts, people thought he was a liberal. He is considered a conservative in Utah, but likely could not be elected to political office there. And in this year's presidential election, Republicans (especially Tea Party members) hope he is a conservative at the fork in the road leading the way to a conservative presidency and conservative agenda. But they still aren't sure where he will live after the election. Conservative Republicans fear that choosing between Obama and Romney could mount to head Democrats win, tail Republicans lose.
Another example of distorting the truth are attempts to draw distorted conclusions about unemployment in the U.S. I realize now that I didn't understand just what it meant by unemployment figures, and why some people are not using other measure of unemployment.
The present unemployment rate in the U.S.is 8.1%. When it was 9.6%, President Obama said that he would bring the rate down to 8.4% by the end of his first term. Republicans did not complain at the time that 8.4% was not low enough. They seemed to believe that 8.4% would be good, given the state of the economy, and given the fact that they would do all they could to keep that goal from being reached..
Everytime the unemployment numbers showed the rate significantly above 9.0%, Republican would remind the American people that Obama had promised 8.4%, suggesting Obama had promised success but instead had failed. But, now, Republicans no longer consider 8.4% at this stage in the recovery to be success. Even 8.1% is considered failure. They attribute the low rate to the number of people who are no longer seeking employment.
But I'm confused about the nature of the unemployed who are no longer looking for work. I was trying to imagine who these people are. Certainly, these are not people who are just sitting around somewhere, opting to starve to death. There have always been people who were not looking for work because they were on some kind of government assistance, engaged in the sale of illegal drugs, living with their parents or otherwise being supported by relatives. Certainly there are many children, grandchildren and even great grandchildren who are being taken care of by wealthy people and children of the wealthy. Even the middle class people who can afford to provide assistance for them during tough times. These unemployed spend money just a those with jobs and, hence, do not present the drag of the economy that people who have no means of providing for themselves might. Even those who are stealing are using the money stolen to contribute to the economy.
As I have said before, I did not take economic. It wasn't offered in high school while I was there and I didn't take it in college. (Students take it if you can, and take it seriously.) As is the case with so many other aspects of our economy. the complete truth is seldom told about both the real nature and the causes of employment, unemployment and wealthy disparity in America.
In November, rational conservatives can return the U.S. to political and economic sanity. Conservative politicians won't take the risk, but voters won't be taking a risk in the secrecy of the voting booth. This is the time for rational conservatives to send a message to extreme conservative that the times and circumstances demand a return to political respect, common ground, and mutual trust.
In further pursuit of trust, Mitt Romney or President Obama, despite such endorsements not being required, should ask voters to ignore any political ads supporting them that does not show their endorsement. Voters should otherwise conclude that such ads do reflect the beliefs, opinions and ideas of the candidate supported.
No comments:
Post a Comment