The only thing this time was the politician was incompetently bad at hiding it. And I say that as someone who would have been delighted with Sanders.
Whilst all politicians bend the truth and perhaps most do tell a small number of outright lies, that does not make them comparable to Trump.
Trump repeatedly lies, contradicting himself - even within minutes of saying one thing, he'll say the opposite. He doesn't even acknowledge the idea that being truthful is important. This has had deadly consequences, for example in his inability to acknowledge the reality of the pandemic.
It's not just the lying. The narcism and clownish behaviour has made it impossible to take him seriously, and that has damaged America's reputation - this does matter, your reputation matters when negotiating and trying to get things done internationally.
He's also been hateful and offensive towards many individuals and groups. This is bad for social cohesion, but moreover our leaders should try to set an example for us to follow, not debase our society.
Note that I'm not arguing for or against his policies here, and I can understand why some people voted for him.
My point is that it's really important not to normalise his behaviour. That way lies tyranny.
Most any person with a sense of political history could provide a litany of examples just for recent politicians, not to mention past eras.
I don't think the main difference here is Trump's ability to lie, though he does have an impetuous manner of speaking that makes it hard to sustain elaborate lies. I think the main difference is the willingness (or lack thereof) of people in respectable positions to cover for his lying, because he is not considered respectable.
That actually matches my default belief pretty well, FWIW, but I don't have a lot of evidence for it. Yes, there are lots of news stories about lying/corrupt politicians, but without the greater context how can you tell the prevalence? It's like a negative survivorship bias, we only hear about the scandals.
> I think the main difference is the willingness (or lack thereof) of people in respectable positions to cover for his lying, because he is not considered respectable.
Yeah, I found that sad and disgusting.
My personal problem is, is this just what humans are? Can we do better? Should we "Take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."?
I try to remind myself that we are in fact getting better, we have the tools to fix our problems, and there's reason to hope. Yay us!
Because the electorate want that. If they rewarded honest people we'd have more successful honest politicians. In the end too many people want easy solutions, which often don't exist.
The word "only" implies that all other times all other politicians were competently good at hiding it.
Are you gonna answer my question or do you just want to play logical footsie?
Too put an exact percentage on who falls where on a scale of greyness is basically unknowable as a lot shall die with their secrets. But I would sooner claim it was 100% (I don't, not even close) than it is 0% minus Trump which is simply laughably naive.
Sorry for the noise.
Someone once asked me, when Barack Obama was first elected, if I trusted him. I was mildly astonished. I said, "That's not what politicians are for!" To me it seems clear that the primary purpose of politicians is to get out in front of the crowd and justify to ourselves and to the world our crimes, cruelties, and vices.
I mean, if people weren't wicked would there be any politicians or lawyers?
I actually dropped out of high school and was homeless for a few years, in part because of disaffection with society and politics. I got over it. Nowadays I tend to believe that most people are doing their best, we just suck. I think it's the aftermath of the Younger Dryas and the invention of agriculture, but that's a whole 'nother story.
Anyhow, I'm curious about how other people view the world and (at this point in history) the political class, so thank you.
I'm going to assume you're Irish (because of the context) - can you explain to me how Albert Reynolds was a liar? Maybe he just looks honest, sandwiched between Haughey and Ahern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scan...
Plus, he was not bad at hiding it. He had seen lying as being smart, something to be proud of. Significant part of those who like him to - for them the lies were clever way to own the libtards.