Truth and Trust in the US Election

US Senator Hiram Johnson coined the phrase “The first casualty of war is truth”, and this has been the charge levelled at governments and media around the world ever since. Observers of the US Presidential election, however, must conclude that while the candidates are not actually at war with each other, truth has taken something of a beating.

Around one in ten Americans believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim, despite high-profile news reports linking him to a right-wing preacher in his church. TV ads portray him as wanting to teach sex education to kindergarten pupils; his now-infamous “lipstick on a pig” comment was widely taken to be sexist.

In the Republican camp, controversy continues over whether Sarah Palin approved of the “Bridge to Nowhere” and whether she supported or opposed earmarked funds.

Picture credit

Democrats misrepresent what John McCain has said on the economy, continuing to quote him as saying that there are no problems, long after he acknowledged some of the serious failings.

The problem for American voters is that, irrespective of their politics, they need to trust their leaders. Whether you are an urban black Democrat or a redneck Republican, you want to know that your man will do what he says he will. Everyone expects spin in an election - candidates are carefully briefed and teams of aides and scriptwriters try to stop them tripping themselves up in public - and everyone expects candidates to have their own opinions - it would be a rather dull election if they didn't - but when opposing parties say the opposite on matters of fact, someone, somewhere, isn't telling the truth.

There are two damaging consequences to this loss of trust. Either voters adopt a policy of “I'll vote for my party's candidate, whether or not I think he'll make a good job of running the world's last superpower”, in which case there is little value in open elections and a free media, because minds are already made up, or voters simply stop voting, because they have no confidence in the political system, and the next US President is elected by the will of a tiny fraction of the people he will govern.

Either scenario would be a disaster for the United States, which needs to show by example the benefits of a free media and the importance of universal suffrage. How ironic that the country which champions the cause of democracy around the world may be doing so much to harm it.