A new low for truth telling by politicians predicted.
By: Jennifer Potash
The 2004 presidential election may so test the American political system’s reliance on truth-telling that only Superman could save it, at least one speaker implied at a Princeton University panel discussion Wednesday on the stakes of the upcoming contest.
Paul Krugman, a professor of economics and international affairs who also writes twice-weekly columns for The New York Times, said the stakes may not be about the candidates’ specific proposals on foreign policy or domestic issues, but more importantly "truth, justice and the American way."
More specifically, the election will determine a new set of rules in American politics, he said.
"I think it will be a test of what you can get away with in American politics," Mr. Krugman said, maintaining the level of misinformation and untruths by the Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates is unprecedented.
For example, the vice presidential candidates’ debate on Tuesday, between U.S. Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Vice President Dick Cheney whom Mr. Krugman referred to as "Lord Voldemort," the malevolent nemesis of children’s book character Harry Potter revealed how politicians will manipulate the truth, he said.
Take the issue of the estate tax, Mr. Krugman said. Mr. Cheney claimed that millions of families that own small businesses or farms face financial setbacks because of the tax. But the real number is only 340, not the 5 million business owners and farmers the vice president claimed, he said.
Other examples can be found in the new responses by administration officials about the reasons the United States went to war in Iraq, especially comments from the vice president linking former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein with the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Mr. Krugman said.
"Of course there’s always the spin, from either side," he said. "But I think this is something new in American politics and if it works, it will become the norm from now on."
What is at stake is not who wins the White House but who controls Congress, said Mickey Edwards, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma and a lecturer of public and international affairs at the university.
"I always, to the dismay of others who feel strongly about this, have a really good laugh when I hear the candidates talk about what their health-care plan is going to be or what their education plan is going to do or how much we’re going to spend on this or that or what the tax code is going to be because whether or not those things happen doesn’t depend on the president, it depends on the Congress," he said.
The Democrats have a better chance of winning back the Senate than the House, but could still win both houses of the Congress back, according to Mr. Edwards. Democrats may pick up the open U.S. Senate seat in his home state of Oklahoma, he said.
"The Republicans have nominated a totally right-wing nut," he said.
Mr. Edwards said he does not consider the 2004 election to be as dire a situation as some analysts and pundits, who say it is all about the viability of the democratic system.
Several presidents won election without a majority of the vote such as Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy, Mr. Edwards said.
"What’s different today is the bitterness," he said. "What is really at stake is how we will handle the election and the outcome of the election."
Larry Bartels, the Donald E. Stokes Professor of Public and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School and director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics, said the only thing certain about this year’s election is the uncertainty of the outcome.
He showed the audience a recent advertisement he received for a not-yet-published book by the staff of Newsweek magazine that "observed all but will reveal nothing until the last vote is cast on Election Day," Mr. Bartels said.
"Why do the (reporters) reveal nothing? Because they don’t have a clue who will win," he said.