"When Truth Mattered"

That was the title of a book review in today's newspaper.  This isn't about the review, but it does play nicely into what I've been thinking about for a while. This also isn't about CoVid-19, although it also plays into my thoughts.

One of the casualties of the past couple of decades or more has been a loss of trust, of confidence, in many of our institutions.  If institutions form the basis, the backbone, of a society, we might be in more trouble that many of us think.  Which of our institutions can be trusted today?

How naturally, it seems, lies or, at the least, distortions flow.  There is no shame in lying or even in getting caught.  Dishonesty is de rigueur, as if some people are proud to be dishonest, not shamed by it.  There's even a euphemism for lying, "misspeaking."  But, of course, that is only used if one is caught in the lie.

I suppose dishonesty has been around forever.  But there used to be a stigma attached to it.  Once upon a time, liars and cheaters might well be ashamed or embarrassed by their dishonesty.  Perhaps I was/am naive.  Overt dishonesty, from lying and cheating to covering up lies, cheating, and other criminal activity seems to be an industry.

Did all this start with Bill Clinton, perhaps not his many dalliances, but his open lying to the American people, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski?"  When it became apparent he did and that was a lie, he tried to change the definition of "is."  OK, he was impeached, but not removed, acquitted by some of the same politicians who found the other party's defendants automatically guilty.  But what was there really?  Was he embarrassed?  Was there, after maybe some initial shame, any repercussions?  He was in huge demand after leaving office, getting hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars to speak.  And, what are the ramifications of "Hey, if the President can cheat and lie about it with no consequences to speak of why can't I?"

Presidents since have lied, almost as a matter of policy.  Other politicians have followed suit.  Again, maybe his has been going on forever, but the dynamics of lying, cheating, and dishonesty in general have changed.  Does anyone trust politicians?  Does anyone have any confidence that what politicians say/promise is what they really mean? 

What about our media?  Loyal followers CNN, ABC, NPR, and the like are convinced they are getting the truth from these sources, even if proven not to be so.  Likewise, those who watch Fox feel the same way.  Can any thinking person trust any of them?

For decades our schools fabricated how well students were doing.  The penalty was meddling by politicians and corporate-types, leading to the incessant testing, testing, testing.  More and more, educators who seemed to have lost any knowledge of what quality, rigorous education entails, were faced with policies mandated by people who not only know less about education, but also had their own agendas.  Dishonesty came with a price that time.

The list goes on.  Who can trust the Catholic Church which continues to cover up many of its cases involving abusive priests?  Weren't the Boy Scouts also doing the same thing, covering up abuses within its ranks?

I'm sure we'd, at least most of us, would mouth, "Of course truth/honesty matters!"  But do we really believe it?

November

November is the Presidential election.  No, I'm not going to grouse about the rotten choices we'll apparently have--again.  I won't convince supporters of either that their candidates are, well, rotten.  I see myself voting for a write-in candidate once again.  But I think I'm not going through all the rigamarole to be a write-in candidate myself.  I guess jumping through all those hoops isn't worth the thirty or so votes I received in 2016.  (That is, if people weren't lying to me about writing in my name.)

Are we going to have an election?  Of course I think we are.  But what kind of election will it be? With the corona virus still in play, as it will likely be, how will the elections be conducted?  If we are still under "social-distancing" orders (There's another term I don't like.), what will that do to election day? 

Are preparations being made, contingencies?  What about online voting?  By phone?  Perhaps the best option would be mass-mailing absentee ballots.  But what a headache!  Of course, any options other than the traditional voting day are going to be headaches.

With such an election, how long before the winner is declared "illegitimate," as if whoever won deliberately caused the corona virus to win the Presidency.  It, such a claim, will happen and will also gain credence among followers of the loser.  I'm convinced of that.

What if, say, only 23% of voters show up, the others staying home because of fears of the corona? (That recognizes that we usually get only 60%, give or take a few points either side, in Presidential elections)  Will that constitute a legitimate election?  Some might say that nonvoters made a choice to stay home, to not vote.  Is that a real choice, stay home or risk corona?  I don't know and perhaps I'm jumping the gun.  But as the Boy Scout motto reads, "Be Prepared."

Historically (There he goes with that history stuff again......), have past Presidential elections been "legitimate?"  For instance, although Union soldiers in the Civil War were given absentee ballots, I would think many of them didn't vote, either because they had other things go do (really?) or the ballots never reached them or were never returned to be counted.  Toss in the fact there were no elections in the Confederate states, at least none for the US President.  I guess one might argue the Southerners opted, through their actions, not to vote.  Still, it's interesting to note that Abraham Lincoln was never the President of the entire United States.  Hmmm......

Let's go back a bit farther in US History.  How legitimate were Presidential elections earlier, say before the Jackson campaign of 1828?  Six Presidents were elected, in effect, by white men of a certain age who had some means (wealth/property) and of a certain religion (still in some states until the 1830s).   Slaves couldn't vote; neither could Indians.  Nor could women.  Property qualifications were still in effect in many states.  So was membership in a particular religious denomination.  And those who didn't vote didn't do that because of choice.  They weren't legally permitted to vote.  The laws precluded that.  Even though legal in the strict sense of the word, were these Presidential elections legitimate relative to the ideas and ideals of the Declaration of Independence and, especially, the Constitution?

Food for thought.  While I'm at it, let me provide a little reading material, about a man who I find very inspirational.   Follow this link:  https://www.runmichigan.com/view.php?id=35030