Home » Academics » Truth Lab

Truth, Honesty and Politics

Asking the Right Questions

I am going to take a quick break from the "bigger questions" series (you remember — the meaning of life issues). I want to ask some "big" questions that will helps us wade through the murky waters of the upcoming election — and every election thereafter.

I used to work in politics. I've helped several candidates get elected (and a few get not elected as well). I know how the "spin" works and I know what the public wants to hear. Through my work in politics it became abundantly clear that only one in 1,000 folks — well, very few, anyway — had any idea what tax policy really looked like or how social welfare policy impacted them. I know that very few had even an inkling of what foreign policy or energy policy had to do with their own lives.

Why, then, are we still seeing candidates present lofty policy goals, when so few people have any idea what these candidates are talking about?

In the college-age crowd I've seen interest in the political process plummeting. It's heartening, though, to hear that more and more students are showing interest in this year's election. However, I wonder how many of us are prepared to really look for the real differences between the candidates. Admit it: After a while, they begin to sound so much alike. Their rhetoric is the same; their ads have the same look. Eventually, it boils down to a popularity contest, and we end up voting on image rather than substance. That concerns me.

When Jesus said we should give unto Caesar what is Caesar's (Matthew 22:21), I don't believe He was dismissing the reality of government or absolving us of our responsibility to take interest in it. Instead, I think He was demonstrating the existence of government as a very special sphere of influence in our culture.

In determining what direction our government will take us, we need to think carefully about where candidates are taking us. But how do we know? I want to present three basic questions that might begin to uncover these issues. These questions aren't unique to me, or TrueU; many others throughout the ages have asked these same questions. Since that's the case, perhaps we should take heed and begin to press the candidates to answer these three questions.

The Questions to Ask

Question 1: What are your basic beliefs and what do you believe to be true?

I know this is a huge question. Indeed, it seems any candidate would have trouble squeezing their answer to this question into a sound bite for the news. And yet, it seems like an essential question to ask. Let's find out the basic foundations for their beliefs. What issues do they care about? Why? In their telling of that story we might be able to decipher if they've really thought deeply about the issue in question, or whether they believe things because they've been told to believe that way. In a candidate's response we might also hear hints of the level of commitment they have to those ideas.

When we dig this deep, we help people see a candidate for who they really are — which isn't all that different from us, really. That is, we all have a worldview, and that worldview manifests itself in the things we say we believe. Even more, it manifests itself in what we do with those beliefs. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. On to Question 2.

Question 2: How do you think those values and beliefs will impact the decisions you'll make while you're in office?

Here's where the rubber meets the road. Once the candidate has identified their beliefs, we need to see the degree to which they integrate these beliefs into their actual decision making. For instance, we should ask of a pro-life candidate, "How does your foundational belief in the sanctity of human life relate to how you'll vote on the policies that will come across your desk?" We need to see if they have even thought about things at this level.

I used to write "white papers" for candidates. Those are the short insights into what a candidate thinks about certain issues. Those short papers are put into even shorter "position statements" that massively simplify any given issue. Even better is when the "position statement" becomes a 30-second advertisement. When distilled to this level, nobody is quite sure what the candidate stands for. And it's this sort of ambiguity you and I see on television. I would love to see Question 2 asked at every town-hall meeting and every political debate. In a candidate's answer to this question we begin to see if they have even thought about how, in that moment of decision, their values will play out.

Iris Murdoch, in her work, The Sovereignty of Good, says that when someone reaches the actual point of decision, the business of choosing has already been done.¹ Her point is well taken here: When a candidate is elected and then enters the process of governing, they are forced to make important decisions. The candidate's character, how they weigh the options, their ultimate decision — all that has already been decided by the candidate's values and beliefs.

Question 3: Do you have the strength of conviction to stand up for those beliefs when others line up against them and attack them?

Question 1 identifies the candidate's beliefs. Question 2 measures their application of those beliefs. And this final one question helps us dig beneath the surface to see if they have the character to live up to the beliefs they profess.

How many times have we been disappointed in governing leadership when they say they stand for something and then publicly decide in another direction? Too many, probably. I believe we need candidates who have convictions and stand by them.

A example for me occurred when the U.S. Congress was beginning deliberation over the impending impeachment of then President Bill Clinton. A friend of mine was running for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives. He represented a very conservative district and he had been unfortunately silent on where he stood on the four counts against the President. In a conversation I had with him about his upcoming election, I noted that people in his district were a bit uncertain about him because he had not yet taken a stand on this issue.

My friend's response really made me think. He and three other representatives took a couple days off to review all of the evidence that had been gathered in the case. There were mountains of paperwork, interviews, depositions and so on. After two days of review he emerged and announced to us that he could only vote "guilty" on one of the four counts. It was not because he didn't agree with the indictments, but he failed to find adequate evidence to fully prove them. I remarked to him that his electorate wasn't going to too happy with the decision, but he stood his ground. I knew my friend to be a man of principle and when I noted that it could cost him the election, he said he was well aware of that but that he must make his vote based on his beliefs in justice and fairness, not political favoritism.

At a time in our nation's history when truth, values and character were largely absent from politics, I was honestly taken aback by my friend's refreshing sense of character. In the face of adversity, he was willing to sacrifice his job for the idea of living up to what he proclaimed to believe.

By the way, he won by a landslide that following fall. He proved me wrong. He also gave me a bit more hope in those voters who saw and appreciated his strength of character.

Down with Hype and Hoopla

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

What question would you like to ask a political candidate?

Join the discussion!

Rather than spending hours boning up on economic theory or foreign policy (or even finding out where Iran or Iraq are on the map), let's ask some questions that tell us about the man or woman who is running for office. Let's make them tell us where they stand — not on the specific issues, but on the foundational beliefs that will drive their lives and our states and nation.

Maybe in the next political debate one of you will pop up in the audience and ask one of these questions and, in so doing, strike a blow for honesty in politics. Let's try to look beyond the hype and the hoopla to the heart of who these candidates are.

Wouldn't that be refreshing?