[detbuch]

Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

No. Politicians are expected to lie. They lie to get elected. They paint negative portraits of their opponents in the primaries. They paint negative portraits of their opponents in the finals. They make promises they can't or won't keep. They lie to pass bills. They make back door deals to pass those bills all the while they pretend to be fighting each other. They lie to get re-elected. They again paint negative portraits of their opponents. They promise their donors to sweeten legislation to give them breaks or advantages. They spend most of their visible time on spin and "optics" to persuade us that they are fighting the good fight for us. When they achieve a secure status as tough, experienced warriors for the people, they achieve a comfort with each other and understand that the jabs they take against each other is just show for their constituencies, so are able to make
"bipartisan" deals that keep the ball rolling and keep the "trust" with their voters. Their constituents are perfectly happy to accept the lies which enable their warriors to win. They secretly cheer the lies, even if they have to justify them as not so bad, perhaps exaggerations, a means to a good end.

Politics is war. It is winning and losing. A politician's first priority is to win. They are subject to the principles of war. Wars require deceit.

Those that don't understand the rules and principles of war, but choose to run on rules and principles of governance, are considered purists--too naïve to win. They may inspire a following, even a considerable one, but the "smart" folks in the political, business, and media world don't respect their narrow naivete, so they are easily marginalized, made to look like fringe radicals or fools. The "smart," experienced and well backed pols on either side of the aisle use the "purists" for a push, then discard them when their goals are achieved.

Lying is not the issue. It is the mode. Unless you believe the medium is the message. But then you would be a purist. The issue is what is "good" for the people--do you subscribe to the "smart, pragmatic" ideology that society is best for all if it is directed by a bureaucracy of experts, Hobbes' version of the Leviathan--or if it is best for all if individuals determine how to live their lives, the Lockean concept.

Obama may seem to be "lying" more than most. I don't know if that is true. I think he believes in the progressive message, and that it is separate from the medium of lying. He is good at it. His handlers and his party seem to be better at it than their opposition. He and they are very successful. For the most part, their opposition not only seem foolish, but don't very much separate themselves in policy--they are not choosing a Lockean path of governing. For instance, they are trying to come up with an "alternative" to Obamacare. That is, another Hobbesian method--central planning. Those in their party, Tea Partiers, who would choose John Locke's method, were useful to win some elections, but are now seen to be an obstacle and are shunned.

The issue, then, is choosing either principle or progressivism. The former are adherents, the latter are the strategists. We have been guided by the strategies to be concerned primarily with economic conditions and with creating centralized economies of distribution rather than allowing free individuals wide reign to create wealth and distribute it through markets. And the public sympathy has been trained to favor government intervention in personal problems and catastrophes rather than private solutions.

Political progress has arrived at a historical place where most people do not feel adequate to live a modern life without government help. And the progression of how much help is needed has grown from little to a lot. Those who voted for Obama and his party have been persuaded that a lot of help is needed, and the more the better. He and his party and their fellow traveler "Republicans" have been very successful at engendering that attitude. Obama won't pay a price with them. He will be lauded.

And if "Republicans" win congressional seats or the Presidency, but continue to play Democrat-lite, it will merely slow down "progress" a bit.