A Theory on Lying

Some of us think that a person who lies in order to gain office, will continue to lie after gaining the office. For instance, such a person may start a needless war that costs thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. So if a candidate lies repeatedly in his (or her) campaign, and in unapologetic when caught lying, that alone ought to be the issue that causes us to not elect him (or her).

People (like me)who think that way are perplexed that a candidates lying doesn't seem to faze others -- millions of others.

But maybe I've figured it out.

Historically (recently, anyway), most of the lying and distortion has been done by Republicans. Republicans, of course, are the believers in unfettered capitalism, in the free market, in de-regulation. Competition, they argue, will lead to the greatest good for the most people.

Well, I think they are applying that to political campaigns. Why should capitalism be limited to economies? If, say, allowing hamburger manufacturers to compete freely and without restriction has led to the best possible hamburger, why should we be denied choice in Truth? Will choice not lead to the greatest Truth?

For instance. Say something costs $3.00. In a Republican's left hand is $1.00, and in his/her right hand is $1.00. In the restricted, regulated world of elitist math, 1=1+2 and the Republican is a dollar short. If, however, we subscribe to the competing view that 1+1=3, then things work out the way we want them to, and the Republican can buy the $3.00 product.

For Republicans, competition solves everything! Regulating Truth (demanding, for instance, that 1+1=2) punishes those for whom Truth is inconvenient. By de-regulating truth, all competing views on a subject get their chance to prove their value. It is simply capitalism, which has been the basis for the most successful economy in history; it follows (to Republicans) that it will lead to the most successful Everything Else in history.

So: that Sarah Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere cannot be the only Truth allowed on the field; a competing truth is justified, because competition allows Sarah Palin to not be a lying sack of fertilizer, and that is the desired outcome. Likewise, the desired outcome in November is for John McCain to be president. For that to happen, it would help if the truth that Barack Obama did not teach sex to 5 year olds were not the only truth promulgated; ergo, the lie that he did want to teach sex to 5 year olds must be allowed onto the field.

That's my theory, anyway: it's just a free marketplace of ideas.