Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Jan. 18, 2000 /11 Shevat, 5760

David Limbaugh

David Limbaugh
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
David Corn
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Arianna Huffington
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Debbie Schlussel
Sam Schulman
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports
Newswatch
Weekly Standard

Econophone

Trakdata


Do voters really prefer straight talk?


http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM is that the electorate is weary of slick politicians and just wants candidates to tell the truth. These are lofty-sounding sentiments but I'm not convinced.

In an interview with Fox News' Brit Hume, pollster Frank Luntz explained that voters are drawn to the campaigns of Bill Bradley and John McCain because of their "straight talk."

I have no doubt that Luntz, a superb pollster, is accurately describing the findings of his voter interviews. But I do doubt that the people he was interviewing were being completely honest with themselves.

That is, I have come to believe that far too many voters don't necessarily want to be told the truth. They prefer to be told only what they want to hear.

So whether voters like straight talk depends on what the meaning of "straight talk" is. If by "straight talk" we mean the sanctimonious condemnation of all politicians and the system as corrupt, then yes, many love to hear that. That doubtlessly accounts for much of Bradley's and McCain's popularity.

But if we define "straight talk" as "the truth," then I'm not sure voters care much for it. A few examples will suffice.

Many voters seem to respond favorably to demagogic rhetoric advocating stricter gun control laws every time another massacre occurs involving firearms. Pandering politicians calling for tighter measures are lauded, even though common sense demands the conclusion that more laws wouldn't have prevented the tragedies.

Similarly, Bradley and Gore are mopping up disenchanted voters with their promises of campaign finance reform, despite the fact that their proposed solutions will never come to fruition because they are unconstitutional.

So in these cases, and countless others, are voters craving the truth or something else?

I have no doubt that people disdain "double-talk." They want candidates to address issues directly and not talk around them. They prefer politicians who talk clearly and unambiguously. But they don't necessarily prefer that the content of those "straight" remarks be absolutely truthful.

Can anyone really doubt that Dr. Alan Keyes speaks from the heart? That he speaks the truth? But does the public always want to hear what he has to say? No, because much of it is unpleasant and to some extent an indictment of them.

Keyes has been warning of the moral crisis that pervades this nation. He recently told an assembly of students that violence in schools is merely a symptom of a larger problem: moral decay. "It is not a consequence of guns in the hands of children, but an absence of God in our hearts." If Americans can so casually kill the unborn innocent, he asked, why should they be surprised to find their offspring murdering one another in school?

In this respect, Keyes reminds me of the prophet, Jeremiah. Jeremiah repeatedly indicted Israel for willfully abandoning G-d and worshipping idols. He prophesied that judgment would follow. Jeremiah's admonitions were met with threats on his life and later he was beaten, put in stocks, imprisoned and placed in an empty well, left to die.

Keyes has not been beaten or left to die, but his words are heartily rejected by those who don't want to hear. Even some conservative commentators are referring to his ideas as "nutty" and "extreme."

Keyes is only an extremist if lying and circumlocution have become the norm for politicians. He is just saying things that make many people, including Republicans, uncomfortable. People don't want to be told that their society is ailing morally because they know they have a responsibility for its condition and its healing. It's much easier to deny the problem.

Keyes is also saying that we should return to our constitutional roots. That conservative message can only be labeled extreme if we acknowledge that we have radically abandoned those roots -- another damning admission.

Keyes' message is striking a responsive chord with many voters, but he's far from leading the pack. Yet he's talking straight and telling the truth. Just like Jeremiah.

So next time we hear the glib line that voters just want to be told the truth we should not accept it unquestioningly. Instead, we should probably ask ourselves whether indeed we can handle the truth.


JWR contributor David Limbaugh is an attorney practicing in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and a political analyst and commentator. Send your comments to him by clicking here.

Up

01/12/00: Media's McCain efforts may backfire
01/10/00: Conservative racism myth
01/05/00: Just one more year of Clintonian politics
01/03/00: McMedia?
12/27/99: Al Gore: Bullish on government
12/22/99: Bradley's full-court press
12/20/99: Bush: Rendering unto Caesar
12/15/99: Beltway media bias
12/13/99: White House ambulance chasing
12/08/99: Clinton's labor pains
12/06/99:The lust for power
12/01/99: In defense of liberty
11/29/99: Are Republicans obsolete?
11/24/99: Say you're sorry, Mr. President
11/22/99: Architects of victory
11/17/99: Trump's tax on freedom
11/15/99: GOP caves again
11/10/99: Triangulation and 'The Third Way'
11/08/99: Sticks and stones
11/03/99: Keyes vs. media lapdogs
11/01/99: Signs of the times
10/27/99: The false charge of isolationism
10/25/99: A matter of freedom
10/20/99: Clinton's mini-meltdown
10/18/99: Senate GOP shows statesmanship
10/13/99: Senate must reject nuclear treaty
10/11/99: Bush bites feeding hand
10/06/99: Jesse accidentally opens door for Pat
10/04/99: Clinton and his media enablers
09/29/99: Reagan: Big-tent conservatism
09/27/99: The Clinton/Gore taint?
09/22/99: Have gun (tragedy), will travel
09/20/99: Hillary's blunders and bloopers
09/15/99: GOP must remain conservative
09/13/99:Time for Bush to take charge, please
09/10/99: Bush's education plan: Dubya confounds again
09/07/99: Pat, savior or spoiler?
09/02/99: Character doesn't matter?
08/30/99: Should we judge?
08/25/99: Dubyah's drug question: Not a hill to die on
08/23/99: Should Dubyah start buying soap ... for all that mud?
08/16/99: 'W' stands for 'winner'
08/11/99: The truth about tax cuts
08/09/99: Hillary: Threading the needle
08/04/99: What would you do?
08/02/99: No appeasement for China
07/30/99: Hate Crimes Bill: Cynical Symbolism
07/26/99: Itís the 'moderates', stupid
07/21/99: JFK Jr. and Diana: the pain of privilege
07/19/99: Smith, Bush and the GOP
07/14/99: GOP must be a party of ideas
07/12/99: Gore's gender gap
07/08/99: Clintonís faustian bargain: our justice
07/06/99: The key to Bush's $36 million
06/30/99: Gore: a soda in every fountain
06/28/99: 'Sacred wall' or religious barrier?
06/23/99: GOP must lead in foreign policy
06/21/99: Crumbs of compassion
06/16/99: Compassionate conservatism: face-lift or body transplant?
06/10/99: Victory in Kosovo? Now What?

© 2000, CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.