Is dishonesty an acceptable tactic to win?

[Zhade]

The seed of this poll is in my "war was not a mistake" thread. Thought not a direct continuation of that thread, this poll is intended as a broader examination of the main question raised: is lying to the American people an acceptable tactic for any Democratic nominee to engage in to win their race(s)?

Some have stated that "anything" is acceptable to win (I'm assuming the White House and Congress in 2008), while others like myself have posited that honesty is a 'first principle' of sorts with regards to our leaders.

Personally, I cannot condone using the same tactics the Republican party uses. I cannot lie or condone lying, even to win the White House. I'm not asking others to align with me; I merely wonder how this breaks down.

Is it acceptable to you for any Democratic nominee to intentionally deceive about any issue to win an electoral contest?

Please expound on your answer as you see fit, or not at all. Thanks!

[Eric J in MN]

1. I voted Not Acceptable. If our side lies, we're like Republicans.

The means-and-the-ends go hand-in-hand.

[Zhade]

2. I agree.

It would be hypocrisy.

[gravity]

3. I disagree with the premise

I don't think that saying "the Iraq War was a mistake" is the equivalent of telling a lie

[Zhade]

22. Your perception aside, this thread is not based on that premise.

It is based on the larger issue of lies and truth.

Thanks for the kick!

[JeffR]

4. Unacceptable, and the best part is all the Dem candidate needs to do

is tell the plain truth in direct terms, make careful but bold plans, outline those plans simply and honestly, and point out - politely but insistently - how utterly ridiculous to the point of obscenity it would be to turn the Executive Branch back over to Republicans.

It's really very simple, though the professional campaign consultants and the talking heads make it so complicated.

[Cleita]

5. The ends justifies the means is never an acceptable tactic

and lying for gain, no matter how noble it may appear, is never just nor justified. Just because you think you are in the right, doesn't mean that you aren't deluded, so dishonest tactics are never acceptable.

[JeffR]

6. That's very nicely and neatly said, Cleita

:thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

11. Agreed 100%

:thumbsup:

[LSdemocrat]

7. In a general election, as long as it ain't illegal, it's fair game

The stakes are just too high to lose.

[Telly Savalas]

36. The ends don't justify the means

Rather, the ends are the logical conclusion of the means. You play dirty and you get dirt running the country. The stakes are too high for that.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

8. I voted not acceptable

But the sad truth is that both sides have lied for a very long time.

[Selatius]

9. Would you people sing a different tune if it meant stopping the next George W. Bush? n/t

[TahitiNut]

13. He's a symptom of a much more pervasive cancer in the body politic, imho.

People believe lies because we want to believe them - not because they're particularly credible.

[Zhade]

24. Exactly. The idea that the ends justifies the means is why he's (illegally) in office at all.

NT!

[Cobalt-60]

17. I might. But it isn't necessary

Straight truth will blow our enemies clean out of the water.
In this era of omnipresent recording devices, the stuff coming out of a politicians cake hole better be true.
Or they'll be beaten to paste by the Iron Hammer of recorded lies.
Consider the fate of that unworthy dog, Tony Snow.
He's gone because his lie trail was so very dense. I don't believe there's anything medically wrong with him.
Indeed, I won't believe any Republicon statement including "the sun is out" or " the sky is blue" regardless of the apparent evidence. I'm right far more often than I am wrong.

[Zhade]

25. Lies are what GAVE us b*s*.

Lies about Gore, about Clinton, about b*s* himself. About the past, about the world, about his plans and Gore's plans and...

[BlooInBloo]

10. DUers are big on using the same tactics as republicans. "Fighting fire with fire", they commonly say

[gravity]

12. If it takes lying to win, then it's acceptable

It's not worth doing what's in your heart if it means that you will experience 4 more years of Bush, and millions of people suffering from the consequences.

If we have to lie to make the world a better place, then I am for it. For an extreme example, if it takes lying to prevent genocide, you'll be inhuman not to lie.

Morality isn't black and white.

[BlooInBloo]

14. "Morality isn't black and white." - traditional copout for ends-justifies-the-means people.

[LSdemocrat]

19. In a presidential election, any legal means do justify the ends

The stakes are too high to let the Republicans screw the country and the world for the next 4 years.

[gravity]

20. The ends can justify the means in some cases

If you have to commit a small evil to prevent a big evil, then it would be justified.

You just have to compare the consequences of lying to the consequences of not lying, and do what's best for society.

[Zhade]

28. You don't happen to write for 24, do you?

:)

[gravity]

33. Sorry, never seen the show

[Hosnon]

37. But the means don't absolutely justify the ends either. A combination of principles

and results desired is the better choice, in my opinion.

[BlooInBloo]

38. Yeeaah... further proof that not everything syntactically correct is actually meaningful.

[Hosnon]

40. What don't you understand?

The desired ends don't always justify the manner in which those ends are achieved. Alternatively, desired means (first principles, e.g., be honest, deal in good faith) don't always justify the resulting end.

An example of the former is, say, destroying every other U.S. citizen eligible for election to the Presidency in order to insure victory for oneself. An example of the latter is often brought up in the context of the Constitution. Justice Jackson famously said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, i.e., if stubbornly holding to the principles in that document leads to the destruction of the Union, those principles should be (temporarily) ignored.

Edit: Spelling and content: It was Justice Jackson, one of my favorites, who coined the phrase, "suicide pact".

[Zhade]

29. Let's expand on that.

Would you MURDER to "make the world a better place", whatever that nebulous statement means?

[gravity]

32. It all depends on the context

It would have to be a very serious scenario, something like 1 in a million chances of happening, but I would never say that I would NEVER murder anybody.

There is always the unintended consequences which can make the situation much worst, so it would have to be something extremely serious to justify murdering someone. It's not something you take lightly.

[OHdem10]

15. I just wish Dems would do a better job and

be more agressive in identifying lies told
against Dems and really doing something
to diffuse them.

Example: I just know if you surveyed Americans,
they have the impression that Demoricrats just
want to stop everything and pull out of Iraq
in an irresponsible way. No concern for what
happens. Every Cable Channel Reporter--I do
not watch MSM that much-- repeats over and
over "Democrats have no plan" repeating Republican
talking points.

This is blatantly untrue. No one corrects them.

Democrats will raise taxes.

Dems should hit this hard. If we do raise taxes
it will be on those who make over a certain amount
Name the dollar amount. This group has had a free
ride and received generous taxcuts while the poor
and Middleclass have sacrificed during this war.

In small towns a person can be Pres of Kiwanis
and make 35,000 annually. Socially, he thinks
he falls into the rich category. Republicans
have convinced these people that when the Democrats
say they are going tax the rich, they really mean
people like him. People making 20,000 annually
think they are middleclass. (If you have kids,
there is no way in H you are middleclass.)
I saw this on a MSM program on elections.

No I do not like outright lying in a campaign.But
for goodness sake make your positions clear
to people and understand where they are.
Fight back hard and diffuse lies spread
by the opposition.

[piedmont]

16. No. But the truth is on our side anyway.

That's why the repubs have a problem with "truthiness." Our party should be reality-oriented.

[porphyrian]

18. Is lying to the American people an acceptable tactic for any Democratic nominee to engage in...

...to win their race(s)? No. That's completely against what we stand for and it's the tactic of the enemy.

However, to the subject line question "Is dishonesty an acceptable tactic to win?" I would have to say yes, possibly, depending on the circumstances. Dishonesty isn't in itself necessarily a bad or harmful thing. And, for that matter, winning isn't always the most desirable end. A tactic is just a tactic without context.

[opihimoimoi]

21. The Quality of our Gov't depends on honest/objective decision making

The GOP has gotten hold of the reins of our Gov't by devious means...just look at what they have done...

[Irreverend IX]

23. I'm reminded of something Bartcop said...

It was either Bart's Law #1 or #2: never tell the truth during a political campaign.

What would you rather do, falsely pledge to keep taxes low or allow the continued slaughter in Iraq?

[Zhade]

26. Who says you have to do either?

NT!

[lpbk2713]

27. To accept that premise would be to exonerate Katherine Harris & The Supremes

... in the Y2K Florida selection. And that is something I can never allow.

[Zhade]

30. It's rather distressing that this is even an argument.

How some people can see honesty as optional - it frightens me a great deal.

I think it's at the heart of the diseased cancer eating away at this country.

[BlooInBloo]

35. DUers *truly* believe that it's not wrong to do it, if someone did it to you first....

... They're like children in that way.

EDIT: "Lisa! Don't torture your brother! But mom! Bart tortured me *first*!"

:rofl:

DUers slay me.

[Swamp Rat]

31. No. n/t

[Zhade]

34. Kicking to read when I get home.

Thanks so far for the responses, even the ones that turn my stomach and make me realize why this country's in such a deep hole!

[Hosnon]

39. It all depends on the circumstance.

The ends do not always justify the means but neither do the means always justify the ends.

Why must we always want some absolute principle that can be fed into a machine and produce a logically consistent result? As adults (presumably with rational capabilities) general principles should be followed. However, when the circumstances necessitate that those principles be temporarily discarded, they should be. When is that? It's a judgment call.

Is lying an acceptable tactic to win the 2008 race? Possibly.

[LaPera]

41. The republicans are shameless and will lie, distort, smear - anything because

they only see it as a win is a win (and they are correct)...And they always point the finger to distort their sliminess and the media responds predictably... as, well, both parties are dong it, bullshit! Watch the way they try and take Edwards out of the race (as they did with Howard Dean's speech get rid of the most difficult candidate, you think Rove & the republicans aren't manipulating our party? That leaves it all for Obama & Hillary...unless Gore gets in the race then the same slimy tactics as towards Edwards will apply....They want Obama & Hillary as our choices....and we will believe, attack our own and accept it as our choice. And now we have the wealthy corporate DLC to be very concerned with as well.

[RB TexLa]

42. Of course you lie to win elections. That's part of campaigning.

"You want $200M more for interstate highways your your state?" "Well, elect me and that's what you'll get . . . or something better."