Truth Matters: How The Voters Can Take Back Their Nation

Truth
Matters
How the Voters
Can Take Back
Their Nation
✪ ✪ ✪
Dean T.
Hartwell
01FM 1-14_14 1 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, or me-
chanical, including photocopying, recording or by any means
or information storage and retrieval system without written per-
mission from the publisher and or the author. Inquires should
be addressed to:
Dean Hartwell
deanlori@aol.com
Copyright 2001 by Dean T. Hartwell
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Hartwell, Dean T.
Truth Matters: How the Voters Can Take Back Their Nation
Library of Congress Control Number 2001088369
Includes bibliographic references and index.

1. Anderson, John, 1922- . 2. Dukakis, Michael, 1933- .
3. Brown, Edmund G., 1938- .
4. United States-Politics and Presidential Elections 1980-
First Edition — 2001

ISBN-print edition 0-9709070-0-1
Second Edition-ebook — 2005

PDF edition ISBN 0-9709070-1-X
Published by:
Hartwell Communications
1102 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 74
Glendale, CA 91202
Printed and bound in the United States of America
Cover and interior design by Ernie and Patty Weckbaugh,

Casa Graphics, Inc., Burbank, CA 91504.
01FM 1-14_14 2 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

“This book ‘delivers’ an insightful look at how and why we
elect the leadership we do. It tells us what we must do to elect
better officials and ensure that we take back our nation.”
—Hal Hemingsen, Retired Postmaster of Glendale, CA
“Dean Hartwell’s book, Truth Matters, is an important and

enlightening wake up call for those of us who care about this
country and what is really happening to it and to us. Many
citizens of this country are frustrated with the direction in which
this nation is going, but are unable to identify the true nature
of their frustrations. Mr. Hartwell does just that and shines a
light on the machinery of how we choose our nation’s leaders,
and underscores why we need to reform that machinery and
ourselves, the voters. The author examines presidential elec-
tions, both past and present, and explains how, ultimately, we
the voters are responsible for the leaders we choose. The book
is intelligently and thoughtfully written by a knowledgeable
author, and yet is also written to be understood by all, itself an
example that our democracy is not just for the privileged few,
but for all of us.” —Marc Pezzell, MLS, Los Angeles librarian
“Truth Matters confirms our nation’s desperate need for

election reform. We could easily get started with ‘Instant
Runoff Voting.’” —Daniel Johnson-Weinberger, Center
for Voting and Democracy
01FM 1-14_14 3 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
01FM 1-14_14 4 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

“In a time of universal
deceit, telling the truth
is a revolutionary act.”
—George Orwell
01FM 1-14_14 5 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Dedication
I dedicate this book to John Anderson, whose

uncompromising plea for sacrifice and
for common sense inspired this book.
01FM 1-14_14 6 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

Table of Contents
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
Acknowledgments 9
Preface 11
1—Election of 1980: Something for Nothing 17
2—1980 Candidate of Altruism: John Anderson 35
3—Election of 1988: Flags and Furloughs 45
4—1988 Candidate of Altruism: Michael Dukakis 57
5—Election of 1992: It’s the Messenger, Stupid 63
6—1992 Candidate of Altruism: Jerry Brown 73
7—Reforming the Voters 81
8—Third Parties and Candidates 103
01FM 1-14_14 7 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
9—How the Egocentric Candidates Have

Dominated the Altruists 119
10—Campaign Finance Reform 131
11—Soft- Money Corruption 145
12—He Can’t Win, So Why Vote for Him? 151

The Need for Instant Runoff Voting
How IRV Would Have Settled the Election
13—The Debate Debate 161
14—Vincent Hamm 163
15—What We Have Learned in the Last

Twenty Years 165
16—2000 Issues: How We Can Apply What

We Have Learned 179
17—Special Edition: George W. Bush—

Egotist or Altruist? 199
18—Where Are They Now? 211
Biography 215
Web Sites 218
Sources Used 219
Index 220
8
01FM 1-14_14 8 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

Acknowledgements
This book would still be a dream in my mind were it not

for several supportive individuals. I thank all of them for
their time and generosity.
Thanks to Ernie and Patty Weckbaugh, who showed me

the way to get this book published and publicized. Their
hours of expertise made what would have been a rocky
road much smoother.
Thanks to my parents, Carol and Ted Hartwell, who set

an example for me by reading frequently when I was grow-
ing up. Somewhere in the early books I read lay the seeds
of my authorship. Mom and Dad also did a wonderful
job of proofreading early versions of this book.
Thanks to my other proofreaders, my brother Paul

Hartwell and his wife, Kim; Daniel Johnson-Weinberger,
Elena Melissa Hartwell, Bill Mahoney, Eric Ward, Marc
Pezzell, Hal Hemmingsen, Frank Quintero, Steve Hartwell
and Sherry Hartwell. My gratitude also to Tracy Buck
for his wonderful cartoons.
Thanks most of all to my wife Lori, who persuaded me

that many others would also want to hear what I have
to say.
01FM 1-14_14 9 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
10
01FM 1-14_14 10 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

Preface
I wrote this book to recapture a magical moment of my

childhood. On November 4, 1980, at the age of 12, I
participated in a mock election for the presidency of the
United States. I was six years away from being allowed
to vote for real, so I savored my time waiting for Mr.
Baltz, my Social Studies teacher, to call the names of the
candidates.
I knew who each of the three candidates were: The Presi-

dent of the United States for the past four years, Jimmy
Carter; Ronald Reagan, who had been governor of my
state of California before I followed politics; and John B.
Anderson.
After watching debates and reading newspaper clippings,

I had no trouble selecting Anderson. His ability to tell
the public the truth that we were living in difficult times
and the courage to propose unpopular solutions (like a
raise on taxes on gasoline) struck me as the type of lead-
ership our nation needed.
What puzzled me after the votes in the mock election were

counted was why my classmates didn’t get it. Twenty-
six of the thirty students in the class voted for the politi-
cian who made the easy promises of cutting taxes and
raising defense spending during a time of economic de-
cline, Reagan. Only the classmate I sat next to, Diana
Klintworth, joined me in supporting Anderson.
11
01FM 1-14_14 11 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
My classmates were not alone in misunderstanding the

candidates. That night the returns gave Reagan an over-
whelming victory in the election and Anderson only seven
percent of the vote. Inspired by Anderson’s campaign, I
decided I would try to understand our political system
and how the voters could have missed him.
Over the years, I got involved with politics in many ways.

I made phone calls for candidates, including one written
about in this book, Michael Dukakis, for his presidential
campaign in 1988. I studied political science at the Uni-
versity of California at Irvine and learned about our elec-
toral system, including reasons why third-party candidates
like Anderson have had trouble getting votes. I also have
read numerous books on political campaigns, including
ten in one week when I attended college.
These activities were enjoyable but something was miss-

ing. It eventually dawned on me that the only way I could
answer the questions I had asked myself in 1980 would
be to talk to Anderson himself. Using my best detective
skills, I went on the Internet and ran a check on one of the
search engines. His name came up several times, and,
after I had discarded the “hits” for the country music star
of the same name, I followed the proper leads to a group
known as the Center for Voting and Democracy and a
column he had recently written. Upon calling them, they
gave me his work number.
When a voice answered, it sounded familiar. Still I asked,

“May I speak to John Anderson, please?” He said, “This
12
01FM 1-14_14 12 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

is he.” After asking a few questions about the column,
I told him I was a big fan of his and was still upset that
he lost in 1980. Before long, we were on a first-name
basis and made plans to meet in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, where he taught law, when I joined my wife
on a business trip in that area.
The conversation that transpired solidified a book I had

been writing. He turned out to be exactly the hero I had
always thought of him as. Ever the gentleman, he took
me to dinner, where we had the conversation I had been
waiting for 19 years. He answered my questions about
his candidacy and gave me many ideas about making our
electoral system work more effectively.
Not long afterwards, John told me a group of people in

the California Reform Party were trying to persuade him
to run for president. They wanted to put his name on the
ballot for the state’s primary the following March. Though
he did not formally agree to it, he did not object, and they
put his name on the ballot.
So, the question of my childhood came to me full circle.

Should I vote for someone like Al Gore who has a strong
chance of winning or should I vote for the best candidate,
John Anderson? My belief that every voter should ask
himself or herself the second question and ignore the first
led me to vote for John once again. That same question
forms the basis of this book.
In every presidential election, candidates discuss the prob-
13
01FM 1-14_14 13 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
lems facing the voters and explain their solutions. The

reader will understand the responsibility of the voter to
research the issues and the candidates so to better under-
stand which candidates are most truthful in explaining
their positions. The candidates willing to tell voters what
they do not want to hear are best able to lead our na-
tion. When a majority of voters value the truth above
self-interest, we will all receive the leadership that we
deserve.
14
01FM 1-14_14 14 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

Election of 1980: Something for Nothing
15
02Chap1 15-32_18 15 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
“Just move the decimal under

revenues over one. No one will
know the difference.”
16
02Chap1 15-32_18 16 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

1 Election of 1980: Something for Nothing
Election of 1980:
Something for
Nothing
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“Vote for the man who promises least; he’ll be the
least disappointing” – Bernard Baruch
V oters looking at the 1980 presidential ballot saw

several choices. The three best known were
incumbent President Jimmy Carter; Ronald
Reagan, the two-term former governor of Cali-
fornia; and ten-term Representative from Illi-
nois John Anderson.
Inflation in November 1980 ran high, as did unemployment.

Many people had lost their jobs and had to wait in line for
gasoline.
Angry voters blamed Carter for these problems. Many of

them took out their frustrations by supporting his leading
opponent, Republican Reagan. Polls showed that few vot-
ers had much enthusiasm for either one of them.
Reagan had won the Republican nomination for Presi-

dent with relative ease. He had run for President previ-
17
02Chap1 15-32_18 17 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
ously, in 1968 and 1976, narrowly losing the Republi-

can nomination to President Ford the latter year. By
1980, he had built a large following, in part because of
the previous campaigns and a syndicated national col-
umn. He had high name recognition and lots of money,
allowing him to dispose of such well-known opponents
as George Bush (former director of the CIA), former
Texas Governor John Conally and former White House
Chief of Staff Alexander Haig.
Anderson had been one of the Republican opponents of

Reagan for the nomination. He participated in nine pri-
maries in February and March of that year, placing a close
second in two of them, Vermont and Massachusetts. He
felt the impact of the “Reaganauts,” a nickname for the
Reagan supporters, especially in Illinois, Anderson’s home
state. Reagan took 48% of the vote in the Illinois pri-
mary and most of the delegates the state would send to
the GOP Convention that summer.
Anderson now recalls, “I was only one of twenty-four

representatives from Illinois. I had a strong base in my
hometown of Rockford, but many voters in rest of the
state were not familiar with me.” Still, he received 37%
of the vote and a share of the delegates.
However, Anderson never could win a primary and, af-
ter a poor showing in Wisconsin in late March 1980,
18
he realized that he would not be the Republican candi-

date. After taking some time off to discuss his options
with family and close friends, he declared an indepen-
dent candidacy on April 24, 1980. He set up organi-
zations throughout the nation and succeeded in get-
ting on the ballot in all fifty states and the District
of Columbia.
As a result of the Illinois primary and other primary

victories, Reagan won the Republican nomination by
near-acclamation in Detroit in July 1980. He chose
Bush to be his running-mate and continued to re-
ceive a high level of contributions for the general
election in November.
Carter limped through the Democratic primaries, chal-

lenged by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachussetts.
Though Carter won most of the primaries, his party ap-
peared to nominate him begrudgingly. Kennedy would
not join hands with Carter in a unity gesture when the
two appeared on the same stage after Carter’s nomina-
tion. Carter named his Vice-President, Walter Mondale,
to be his running mate once again.
Carter and Reagan had two big advantages that

Anderson did not have: money and media time. While
Reagan raised over $75 million and Carter over $65
19
and Jules Witcomb’s subsequent chronicles of the 1980

election, Smoke and Mirrors.
Anderson viewed Carter as discredited in both foreign

and domestic affairs. Overseas, not only had Iran seized
our hostages, but the Soviet Union had invaded Af-
ghanistan. Both events symbolized Carter’s ineptitude.
The failed attempt by Carter to rescue the hostages on
April 25, 1980 only furthered the appearance of Carter’s
helplessness.
Carter’s critics pointed to a new economic term, the “misery

index.” This concept measured inflation, unemployment and
the prime interest rate. Most consumers want all three fac-
tors to be low. In 1980, all three of these factors were higher
than average. Thus, people had a new label for frustration
with Carter.
Furthermore, Carter could not get a comprehensive en-

ergy bill passed even though his party controlled Con-
gress. Congress found his plan to be too complicated.
With the President unable to work with Congress, he
again looked weak and unable to solve problems at
home.
In September, the League of Women Voters announced

plans to sponsor a debate. The League extended invi-
21
02Chap1 15-32_18 21 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

and Jules Witcomb’s subsequent chronicles of the 1980

election, Smoke and Mirrors.
Anderson viewed Carter as discredited in both foreign

and domestic affairs. Overseas, not only had Iran seized
our hostages, but the Soviet Union had invaded Af-
ghanistan. Both events symbolized Carter’s ineptitude.
The failed attempt by Carter to rescue the hostages on
April 25, 1980 only furthered the appearance of Carter’s
helplessness.
Carter’s critics pointed to a new economic term, the “misery

index.” This concept measured inflation, unemployment and
the prime interest rate. Most consumers want all three fac-
tors to be low. In 1980, all three of these factors were higher
than average. Thus, people had a new label for frustration
with Carter.
Furthermore, Carter could not get a comprehensive en-

ergy bill passed even though his party controlled Con-
gress. Congress found his plan to be too complicated.
With the President unable to work with Congress, he
again looked weak and unable to solve problems at
home.
In September, the League of Women Voters announced

plans to sponsor a debate. The League extended invi-
21
02Chap1 15-32_18 21 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
tations to Carter, Reagan and Anderson, citing polls

that all three had at least fifteen percent of the vote.
The invitation to Anderson marked the first time a third-
party presidential candidate received an invitation to a
debate with major party presidential candidates.
President Carter told the League he would not debate

if Anderson were included. Anderson and Reagan ac-
cepted the invitation. On September 21, 1980, Ander-
son debated Reagan on two of the three national tele-
vision stations: ABC instead ran a movie, Midnight
Cowboy.
During the debate, Anderson distinguished his policies

from Reagan’s. He criticized Reagan’s plan as offer-
ing “something for nothing” and discussed raising taxes
and reducing the budget deficit. He stressed the need
for conservation of oil, warning that over-dependence
on the Middle East for oil would cause the United States
to send troops to that region of the world. He discussed
the importance of the separation of church and state
and indicated his opposition to prayer in public school.
The two differed in style. Anderson referred to Reagan

as “Governor Reagan” while Reagan called Anderson
“John.” Anderson viewed the casual address as a “put-
down” and now says, “I should have rebelled against
22
02Chap1 15-32_18 22 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

Reagan by calling him ‘Ron’ or ‘Ronnie.’”
In the end, most reporters said Anderson performed bet-

ter than Reagan did. However, it did not improve his
standing. “It didn’t give us a big enough boost in
the polls since it was only one debate and Carter
did not appear.”
The League planned a second debate. Carter continued

to demand that Anderson not be included. By the middle
of October, polls showed Anderson’s position declining
below fifteen percent to around ten percent as many Ander-
son supporters either switched their preference to other
candidates or lost interest. Even though no law mandated
rules on inclusion of candidates, the League used the fif-
teen-percent standard as its official reason to invite only
Reagan and Carter. “In reality, they caved in to Carter’s
demands,” says Anderson.
Polls between Carter and Reagan indicated a close race

just before the two debated on October 28, exactly one
week before Election Day. Throughout the debate,
Reagan repeatedly chided the President for alleged
broken promises to the voters, saying, “There you go
again.” Voters apparently picked up on this refrain as a
warning of continued hard economic times in the event
of a Carter re-election: The polls after the debate showed
23
02Chap1 15-32_18 23 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
a distinct increase in support for Reagan.
On November 4, 1980, Ronald Reagan won a landslide

victory for President of the United States. The Repub-
lican won 51% of the vote, as compared to 41% for
Carter and 7% for Anderson. More importantly, the
Electoral College gave Reagan 489 votes and Carter
only 49.
How did Reagan win the election?
Reagan did not offer a specific plan nor did he ask much
from the voters in return for their vote. Furthermore,
he had nothing positive to say about an opponent. His
strategy for the election became the standard for can-
didates who chose winning the election above being
honest with voters. Previous presidential candidates
had made vague statements about policy, had refused
to ask for sacrifices and had attacked opponents rather
than ideas, but none with the electoral success that
Reagan enjoyed.
Reagan’s Vagueness
On every issue, Reagan made statements that pleased some
voters without offending anyone. He avoided giving
details and kept his statements as simple as possible.
24
02Chap1 15-32_18 24 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
This idea of a “subtle diplomacy” mimicked another suc-

cessful presidential candidate twelve years before Rich-
ard Nixon in 1968. During that campaign, candidates Vice
President Hubert Humphrey and Nixon debated the United
States policy of intervention in Vietnam. Just as Reagan
and Carter agreed that we must bring back our hostages,
Humphrey and Nixon agreed that we needed to end the
war on terms favorable to the United States.
In a close race, Nixon needed a way to find votes and

made a vague statement to distinguish himself from
Humphrey. He said that he had a “secret plan” to end the
war in Vietnam. If the voters would just trust him and
elect him, he would find a way to end the war and bring
“peace with honor.”
Like Reagan, Nixon never gave any indication as to how

he would cause the war to end. He never provided details
of any plan. He took a position that offended no one, not
even those who supported continuation of the war. After
all, Nixon gave no timeline for when his plan would work.
As it turned out, Nixon did not end the war in his first term,
but instead withdrew U.S. troops after a truce with North
Vietnam at the start of his second term in January 1973.
When Reagan said he would strike against terrorists, he

said nothing about what terrorists sometimes do to people
26
02Chap1 15-32_18 26 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

they take hostage – namely, kill or injure them. He not

only failed to take a clear position, he showed a lack of
understanding of the problem of terrorism. The use of
terrorism to harm United States citizens was a relatively
new situation, although not completely new.
Just five years before, a group of Cambodians captured the

U.S. merchant ship the Mayaguez and held the 40 sailors on
the ship hostage. President Ford, confronted with the news,
made the decision to use force to try to rescue the hostages.
A battle ensued in which eighteen of the U.S. soldiers were
reported missing. Another twenty-three air force personnel
died when a plane sent to the Mayaguez crashed.
How could Reagan have been certain that the use of force
against terrorism would always be the best policy? He
could not be certain of that. He simply used phrases that
struck a chord with the voters who were concerned that
United States appeared weak under Carter. Indeed, when
United States citizens were held hostage in Lebanon dur-
ing the Reagan Administration, Reagan did not resort to
striking them. Instead, he gave weapons to the same Ira-
nian government that had taken our hostages in 1979.
When he said he wanted creationism taught, he pleased the

voters who believe that public schools should teach ideas
with religious foundation. He never explained how children
27
02Chap1 15-32_18 27 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
could reasonably learn two ideas, evolution and creation-

ism, that conflict directly with one another. Nor did he ex-
plain how this idea would pass the constitutional standards
of the freedom to practice one’s religion and the freedom
from official government religion.
His idea, if implemented, would likely have been struck

down by the same Supreme Court that had already ruled
against prayer in public school as unconstitutional. He
may or may not have known about that precedent. Like
his policies on bringing home the hostages and terror-
ism, the ideas he gave voters did not correspond with
plans to govern.
Reagan’s Lack of a Call for Sacrifice
Reagan never told the voters who would pay for his ideas
or who might be inconvenienced or even hurt by them.
Such an admission would have cost him votes.
• On the economy: He called his economic plan

“Reaganomics,” cutting taxes on the rich in the hopes
that they will use the money to create jobs for the poor.
• On the environment: He proposed gutting some envi-

ronmental regulations in order to help business. When
pressed for details, he made the ridiculous observa-
28
02Chap1 15-32_18 28 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

tion that trees cause more pollution than smog. He

dismissed the growing United States dependence on
the Middle East for oil by incorrectly stating that
Alaska had more oil than Saudi Arabia.
• On the budget: He said he would balance the budget

by 1983 with his other policies of lowering taxes and
raising defense spending.
When he suggested gutting regulations, he pleased busi-

nesses, many of whom must follow strict rules on such
matters as the dumping of chemicals and the manufac-
ture of automobiles under a high-regulation environ-
mental policy. But Reagan never discussed who might
have to make a sacrifice under such policies: people
who live close to toxic dumps and people who live
in big cities with high automobile traffic.
When he said he would cut taxes on the rich, he also prom-

ised a balanced budget but failed to state how he would make
up for the shortfall in revenue which occurs with tax cuts.
His own running mate (Bush) had at one time called his
economic plan “Voodoo Economics.” One of his top advi-
sors, David Stockman, who later became Reagan’s budget
director, confided to Anderson (his former boss) that Reagan’s
economic plan would not work. But Reagan refused to give
details; if he had discussed specific spending cuts, he might
29
02Chap1 15-32_18 29 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
have lost the vote of the people affected by the cuts.
Simple arithmetic should have made it clear that he would

not be able to keep this pledge. By lowering taxes, he would
generate less revenue for the government. Raising spending
pushes an economy towards (or deeper into) deficit. A bal-
anced budget would have required less spending on other
government programs.
But even Reagan’s friend and political ally, colum-

nist George Will, pointed out that four-fifths of the
budget is not debatable. Where was Reagan going
to cut spending?
Reagan never answered that question.

Reagan’s Attacks on Opponents
Rather than Ideas
He instead put Carter on the defensive, repeatedly blam-

ing him for the economic recession. Reagan asked the
question of the voters in his debate against Carter, “Are
you better off now than you were four years ago?”
Reagan jeered Carter at every opportunity, even when

Reagan’s position on an issue was similar to Carter’s po-
sition. For example, Reagan called for an increase in de-
fense spending and for a decrease in taxes. In reality,
30
02Chap1 15-32_18 30 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

Carter had already begun a weapons buildup after the

Afghanistan invasion. Furthermore, Carter had cut taxes
during his time in office.
Reagan’s ability to persuade voters shows the elevation

of form over substance in the minds of the voters. If vot-
ers really cared about the facts AND wanted a candidate
who would raise defense spending and cut taxes, Carter
would have been re-elected without much of a problem.
Reagan kept his campaign theme simple: He said he would

lower taxes, a popular idea, especially during an economic
recession. He said he would increase military spending,
another popular idea given the Soviet invasion of Afghani-
stan and the taking of United States hostages by Iran. He
also promised to balance the budget.
In other words, Reagan phrased the key issue in a simple

way. It was a strategy later winning candidates would
use successfully.
31
02Chap1 15-32_18 31 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
32
02Chap1 15-32_18 32 6/9/05, 6:02 AM

Election
1980 of 1980:
Candidate SomethingJohn
of Altruism: for Nothing
Anderson
33
03Chap2 33-43_11 33 6/9/05, 6:03 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
John Anderson at a campaign rally in 1980.
34
03Chap2 33-43_11 34 6/9/05, 6:03 AM

21980 Candidate of Altruism: John Anderson
1980 Candidate
of Altruism:
John Anderson
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“There are many elements to a campaign – leadership is number
one. Everything else is number two.” Bernd Brecher
J
ohn Anderson had several qualifications to hold
the office of the Presidency. He had served in
the United States Congress for twenty years and
had served on several important committees,
including the Rules Committee. He rose to the
third-highest rank among Republicans in the House of
Representatives. He left the Republican Party earlier in
the year out of principle after running in many of its pri-
maries, saying of his GOP opponents, “There isn’t a dime’s
difference among them.” He then marshaled enough sup-
port to get on the ballot in each of the fifty states for the
November election.
The Anderson Difference = Specifics

He and his running mate, Patrick Lucey, co-wrote a book
detailing their “National Unity” platform. The book ex-
plained why Anderson and Lucey had decided to run and
listed their positions on several issues in detail. By con-
trast, neither Carter nor Reagan offered a book to the vot-
ers. Since 1980, several candidates have emulated Ander-
son by writing books (Clinton’s Putting People First in
1992, for example).
35
03Chap2 33-43_11 35 6/9/05, 6:03 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Anderson stated his positions on issues clearly and con-

sistently, vowing, for example, before a gun owner’s group
in New Hampshire of the need for gun control. Anderson
supported a woman’s right to choose an abortion, the Equal
Rights Amendment, gun control, a grain embargo on the
Soviet Union, a fifty-cent per gallon raise on gasoline taxes
and passage of SALT II (arms reduction).
The Anderson Difference = Sacrifice

John Anderson frequently spoke of sacrifices the public
would need to make in order to solve the problems it faced.
He became better known because of editorialists and car-
toonists, including the legendary cartoonist Herblock, who
cited this courage and willingness to ask the people to
make sacrifices.
In response to the United States’ growing dependency upon

Middle Eastern nations for oil, Anderson proposed a fifty-
cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline to discourage consumption.
In his debate with Ronald Reagan in September 1980, Ander-
son warned of the effects of such oil dependency, saying, “I
would rather see us reduce the consumption of imported oil
than to have to send American boys to fight in the Persian
Gulf.” He put his belief in the need for conservation into his
policies. Reagan, on the other hand, merely talked about
how conservation “was a good idea.”
During a debate in Iowa, many of his Republican oppo-

nents expressed their displeasure with President Carter’s
embargo of grain to the Soviet Union. Carter had made
the move not to sell grain to the Soviet Union to oppose
36
03Chap2 33-43_11 36 6/9/05, 6:03 AM

their invasion of Afghanistan. This position angered many

farmers, who believed it hurt them the most. A pro-em-
bargo stance cost votes in states like Iowa where farming
is a leading industry.
After the opponents had spoken and blasted the embargo,

Anderson stated why he supported the embargo:
It’s not easy sitting here in the heart of

Iowa, in farm country, to support an em-
bargo on the shipment of grain, but it
seems to me that it is passing strange that
those who are critical of our foreign policy
as being deficient on the grounds that it is
weak, when the first real test comes of re-
sponding to the kind of overt aggression
that has just been taken by the Soviet
Union against Afghanistan, are unwilling
to accept any measure of sacrifice.
The Anderson Difference = Discussion of Ideas,

Not Politicians
Anderson gave credit to Carter when he believed Carter
had made the right decision, such as the decision to em-
bargo grain against the Soviet Union.
Anderson had the honesty to admit to previous mistakes.

The media in 1980 confronted Anderson with his support
in the 1960s for a Constitutional amendment that would
have recognized Christianity as the nation’s official reli-
gion. Anderson admitted that he had been wrong and
37
03Chap2 33-43_11 37 6/9/05, 6:03 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
pointed out that a few years later, he started voting against

prayer in public schools.
We, the voters, set up a paradox by losing interest in can-

didates who ask us to sacrifice something. These sacri-
fices (like tax raises, embargoing hostile nations instead
of using force, etc.) are often in our best interests. In the
end, we reward candidates who do not ask us for any-
thing and who end up ignoring our interests.
A successful president addresses the nation’s problems and

proposes ideas to solve them. This type of president per-
suades the citizens to support these proposals and challenges
Congress to pass them. Franklin Roosevelt identified the
high unemployment when he took office as the leading is-
sue and convinced Congress to pass his revolutionary “New
Deal” programs in which the government funded programs
to benefit the public. Similarly, Abraham Lincoln identified
the splitting of the Union as the most serious problem and
launched Union forces against the Confederates to stop the
split. By solving that problem, he provided a foundation to
free all slaves throughout the nation.
Both Roosevelt and Lincoln spotted the issues and the

real concern behind each issue. The deeper concern be-
came their basis for action. Roosevelt recognized that
with such high unemployment, the real concern was find-
ing a way to prevent a possible revolution or uprising by
those out of work or out of a home. So, he ignored the
critics who said he would go into debt funding the job
programs. Likewise, Lincoln understood the importance
38
03Chap2 33-43_11 38 6/9/05, 6:03 AM

of the need to end slavery but knew the deeper concern

was to save the Union; otherwise, he could have done
nothing to help the slaves.
Each of these two presidents, ranked by many historians

as the two greatest presidents of our nation, risked losing
election by proposing his ideas. In an election in which
one in four people in the United States had no job,
Roosevelt could have won every state by simply criticiz-
ing his opponent, incumbent President Herbert Hoover.
Instead, Roosevelt won 42 of the 48 states after he chose
to be specific, telling voters during the campaign of his
belief in aid to farmers, a more even distribution of wealth
and federal relief to the poor.
The Southern states left Lincoln off the ballot for advo-
cating the keeping together of the Union. By advocating
this policy, he risked failing to receive the electoral votes
necessary to win the election. But he kept with his belief,
winning with a low 40% of the popular vote and 180 elec-
toral votes, just 28 more than required to win.
Each of the leading issues of 1980 had deeper concerns.

These deeper concerns go beyond the issue itself. For
example, whereas there may have been valid differences
in opinion about what to do about the hostages, no rea-
sonable voter would disagree with the concerns of mak-
ing sure no one else took our people hostage in the future.
Anderson criticized Carter for the failed hostage rescue

attempt and saw no easy solution for this problem. Cer-
39
03Chap2 33-43_11 39 6/9/05, 6:03 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
tainly, he favored no deal to bring the hostages back.
A group of Iranians approached Anderson campaign at-

torney, the late Mitchell Rogovin, about a deal involving
the hostages. They said they wanted Anderson’s help in
procuring and shipping spare military parts Iran had or-
dered before the hostage crisis and in unfreezing assets
the United States had frozen. In exchange, the group
hinted that they would ensure the release of the hostages.
“My campaign did not inform me of the details so as to

give me ‘plausible deniability’ with the media. They did
not want me to be compromised with the knowledge
people in my campaign had talked with people claiming
to represent the government of Iran.”
Anderson refused the offer. “Rogovin correctly surmised

it was a ploy on somebody’s part. It would have been a
height of folly to bargain because it occurred at the time
Iranians were holding our hostages.”
Anderson upheld Carter’s decision to embargo the sale

of grain to the Soviet Union. Though he objected to the
Soviet invasion, he saw no reason to use the military in
that situation. Unlike his Republican opponents in the
primaries, he did not see a military buildup as likely to
deter the Soviet Union from further aggression.
Anderson agreed with Carter that we should find alterna-

tives to the use of the military whenever possible. Use of
a grain embargo forced the Soviet Union to pay higher
40
03Chap2 33-43_11 40 6/9/05, 6:03 AM

prices for grain from other nations. The embargo also

attacked the Soviet Union’s ability to conduct a war. Na-
tions simply cannot feed their army without an adequate
supply of food. Carter may not have stopped the inva-
sion of Afghanistan, but he may have deterred further
Soviet aggression.
On the issue of the economy, Anderson correctly pointed

to the deficit as the problem with more ominous long-
term consequences than inflation or unemployment. The
latter two problems go up and down in cycles. Econo-
mists disagree as to what causes inflation and unemploy-
ment and what can be done to lower them.
By general consensus, economists agree that some infla-

tion and unemployment is inevitable. Some inflation is
acceptable since its opposite, deflation, brings about its
own set of negative consequences, such as less availabil-
ity of currency and a decline in wages.
Anderson had a reputation as a fiscal conservative. He

had supported tax cuts over the years and cuts in spend-
ing in some federal programs. However, he looked at the
economic situation of 1980 and identified the deficit as
the issue that he would have the best chance to correct
with his policies.
Anderson proposed to reduce the deficit by raising taxes

on gasoline by fifty cents per gallon and by refusing to cut
taxes on income or business. Such a tax cut, he believed,
would not be “appropriate” until the economy improved.
41
03Chap2 33-43_11 41 6/9/05, 8:11 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
As for the mood of the nation, Carter had given a speech

the previous summer in which he discussed the problems
that the nation faced. Though he never used the word
“malaise”, many of his critics began to use the word to
refer to the Carter Administration and the nation’s dis-
content.
The hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion took place a

few months after the speech and further compounded the
mood. The despair caused many voters to view the con-
genial, positive style of Ronald Reagan favorably, but may
also have caused these voters to listen closely to the mu-
sic (Reagan’s style) and not the lyrics (his message).
If the voters had heard Reagan’s message clearly, they

might have questioned how the tax cuts would have ben-
efited the poor, who do not pay much in taxes, anyway.
The voters might have questioned how we would pay for
college for the middle and lower class if we were going
to spend more money on the military. They might have
questioned Reagan’s grasp on environmental issues after
hearing his gaffes that trees cause more pollution than
smog and that Alaska has more oil than Saudi Arabia.
Reagan’s outgoing style allowed him to gloss over his

weaknesses of not understanding issues and his vague-
ness. His success shows that voters want a president to
tell them everything will be all right.
But, is the president our national cheerleader? Is the presi-

dent someone who will go on national television to in-
42
03Chap2 33-43_11 42 6/9/05, 8:11 AM

spire the public? If that is the case, why don’t we elect

Anthony Robbins or Wayne Dyer or other motivational
speakers to preside over our nation?
Anderson’s appearance contrasted much with Reagan. He

looked, with his silver hair and glasses, much like a profes-
sor (in fact, that is his current job). Perhaps voters associ-
ated him with being in school, homework and exams.
When Anderson asked for sacrifices, he sowed the seeds

of his own political defeat. Voters followed the “path of
least resistance” and chose the candidate who spoke the
most optimistically about their future: Ronald Reagan.
43
03Chap2 33-43_11 43 6/9/05, 8:11 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
“Election of 1988”
44
04Chap3 44-54_11 44 6/9/05, 6:04 AM

3 Election of 1988: Flags and Furloughs
Election of 1988:
Flags and
Furloughs
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“If you ever injected truth into politics you
have no politics.” - Will Rogers
T
hose who observed the Presidential Election of
1988 between Republican George Bush and
Democrat Michael Dukakis noted the discus-
sion of two issues more than any others. The
first issue was Dukakis’ veto of a bill that would
have made criminals of teachers who refused to lead the
Pledge of Allegiance. The second issue was Dukakis’
furlough program, which allowed convicts to take a week-
end off unsupervised. One of those convicts, Willie
Horton, in prison for first-degree murder, raped a woman
during a furlough during Dukakis’ time as governor.
The Massachusetts Legislature passed a bill that would

have made a teacher’s refusal to lead the pledge a crime.
Dukakis asked his Supreme Court whether the bill was
constitutional, an option available to a Massachusetts
governor. The Court told him that the bill was not consti-
tutional. Dukakis then vetoed the bill.
Dukakis saw the issue as one of legality. The United States

operates under a set of laws. The supreme law is the
Constitution of any state or of the United States. The
45
04Chap3 44-54_11 45 6/9/05, 6:04 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
courts determine the boundaries of laws passed by legisla-

tive bodies such as the Massachusetts Legislature by com-
paring them with the Constitution. When the courts said the
bill was not valid, Dukakis supported their decision.
Bush presented the issue to the voters as one of patrio-

tism. He said he would have signed the bill. When pressed
to explain how he could have signed a bill he knew was
unconstitutional, Bush avoided specifics, saying he would
have “found a way.”
Like many winning candidates, Bush avoided taking a

position that would have likely cost him votes. He up-
held his point of view that Dukakis lacked patriotism with-
out clearly explaining his point of view on Dukakis’ deci-
sion. His attacks on Dukakis enabled him to take the lead
in the polls in early September, a lead he never relin-
quished.
Bush also made political points by reminding voters about

Willie Horton. Again, he took the path of least resistance.
He would not acknowledge that prisons were over-
crowded. Nor would he admit that the federal govern-
ment had a program that he supervised in which a
furloughee murdered a young pregnant woman. Instead,
Bush emphasized his support for the death penalty and
mentioned Horton whenever he could.
Dukakis fought back on both of these issues, but he did so in

a way that sounded complicated. As to the former issue, he
said that Bush wasn’t prepared to be President if he said he
46
04Chap3 44-54_11 46 6/9/05, 6:04 AM

Election of 1988: Flags and Furloughs
would not have signed a bill that was unconstitutional.
Most voters sided with Bush. Why? People in the United

States recite the Pledge of Allegiance from an early age.
I recall saying it every day at the age of five in kindergar-
ten and for several years thereafter. Thus, we understand
it better than the Constitution or the role of a governor.
The pledge is also a symbol of patriotism that most people
are afraid to oppose in any way. Very few people, for
example, give much thought as to why we pledge alle-
giance to the flag rather than to the official document of
our freedom, the Constitution. Fewer still would side with
something complicated and hard to explain over some-
thing easy to understand like the flag.
As to the furlough issue, Dukakis pointed out that he

ended the furlough program for first-degree murderers
right after the Horton incident. He also said that a pre-
vious governor, Republican Frank Sargent, started the
Massachusetts furlough program. To many voters, it
sounded like Dukakis figuratively locked the barn af-
ter the horse escaped.
Bush won the furlough issue as soon as he mentioned the

word “rape.” Fear of rape affects both women and men
intensely. Women are afraid of getting raped and then
having to live through the trauma. Men are afraid that
their wives, girlfriends, sisters, etc. could be raped and
that a person capable of raping could kill the victim and/
or witnesses. Men fear the trauma after the rape in the
context of, “Why wasn’t I there to help the victim?”
47
04Chap3 44-54_11 47 6/9/05, 6:04 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
The issue of furloughs tied directly to one issue on the

minds of all voters, the issue of crime. No reasonable
person supports crime and all of us are potential vic-
tims of it. A governor more directly influences policy
against crime than does the Vice-President (or even,
the President — most serious crimes, such as murder
and rape are debated and enforced at the state, or
governor’s, level).
Bush convinced the voters that he would be the “safer”

candidate. Even the voters who knew of the incident un-
der Bush’s furlough program did not view the two inci-
dents in the same way. Why? Bush put a name on
Dukakis’ mistake—Willie Horton. The public also heard
from the victims of this crime, who spoke out against
Dukakis throughout the campaign.
Bush’s ability to simplify issues also explains why issues

adverse to him did not get much discussion. Issues such
as Bush’s role in the Iran-Contra scandal, his prior rela-
tionship to Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, and his
choice of political lightweight Dan Quayle as his running
mate did not help Dukakis.
How many voters, for example, understood the Iran-Con-

tra scandal, which occurred during Bush’s years as the
Vice President? In that decision by President Reagan to
sell weapons to Iran and use some of the profits to fund
the Contras in Nicaragua, the United States broke two
laws: 1) the Import-Export Terrorist Act, which forbid
the sale of weapons to nations like Iran that the State
48
04Chap3 44-54_11 48 6/9/05, 6:04 AM

Department identified as run by terrorists and 2) the

Boland Amendment, which forbid any money transferred
from the United States to the Contras.
Bush claimed he was “out of the loop” when Reagan

agreed to the deal. This claim was false. He attended at
least seventeen meetings on the subject. In his memoirs,
George Schultz, Reagan’s Secretary of State at the time,
says he went to the Vice-President’s house personally and
pleaded with him to stop the plan.
These facts, however, surfaced some time after the elec-

tion. Still, what about the charge that Bush should have
known about it?
Bush got off the hook since most voters do not under-
stand the role of the Vice-President. The Constitution
gives a cursory description, stating in Article I, Section 3
that “The Vice-President of the United States shall be
President of the Senate, but shall not vote, unless they be
equally divided.” Rarely does the Vice-President cast a
tie-breaking vote. In recent years, Vice-Presidents have
served as members of the National Security Council and
have chaired commissions (such as Al Gore’s “Reinvent-
ing Government”) but have not assumed a position of re-
sponsibility of voting consistently like a Senator or Rep-
resentative or conducting policy like the President.
As to whether Bush actually knew about the plan to con-

duct an illegal deal with Iran and the Contras, the only
way voters could have learned is through the pending trial
49
04Chap3 44-54_11 49 6/9/05, 6:04 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
of Iran-Contra participants like Oliver North. However,

a federal judge postponed this trial until after the 1988
elections. Unfortunately for Dukakis, evidence that Bush
indeed knew of the deal would not surface for another
four years.
Dukakis brought up Bush’s past connections with unpopu-

lar Panama dictator, Noriega. Many years before, in 1976,
as Director of Central Intelligence, Bush had paid Noriega
$200,000 as an “informant.”
In 1988, the United States pressed charges against Noriega

for drug dealing. Of course this policy contradicted Bush’s
previous stance towards Noriega. By supporting these
charges, Bush ensured that his most recent stance, the one
that voters care about the most, was the most popular.
Bush gloated about being a part of the only Administra-
tion to “bring Noriega to justice” by indicting him. Bush
learned the Reagan lesson well: keep it vague.
Furthermore, unlike the situation with Horton, there was

no identifiable victim resulting from Bush’s mistake with
Noriega. In reality, there were thousands of Panamani-
ans who suffered from Noriega’s acquiescence to drug
running in his nation. But to paraphrase the words of
Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, “one victim is a tragedy;
millions of victims is a statistic.”
Voters also found Bush’s connections with Noriega too

distant or too uncertain to hold against him. As one who
voted in a presidential election for the first time in 1988,
50
04Chap3 44-54_11 50 6/9/05, 6:04 AM

I was only eight years old in 1976. I had little knowledge

of the CIA or details of national politics at the time. Vot-
ers older than me might have recalled that Bush had served
as the CIA director at the time, but his payment to Noriega
did not make news. Dukakis’ reminding the voters of
this payment may have sounded like “politics” to many.
In 1988, most people looked at problems at home rather

than ones far away. Dukakis recently told me that “per-
haps people were tired of Iran-Contra and foreign policy
issues by the time of the election.”
One more possible Bush Achilles’ heel, his selection of

Dan Quayle as his running mate, likewise failed as an
issue for Dukakis. Most voters polled said that they did
not view the choice of a running mate as a significant
concern in voting for President. Like Noriega, Quayle
was too distant and too vague. And, again, most voters
do not understand the role that the Vice President plays,
anyway.
Quayle made a number of puzzling statements. For ex-

ample, he said “he wasn’t born in this century” and that
he did not know much about the role of the Vice-Presi-
dent but “could learn.” Word also got out that his family
had gotten him out of being drafted for a war that he sup-
ported and that the family had also funded much of his
campaigns for Congress. But the same voters who heard
of Quayle’s lack of qualifications wound up voting for
him, anyway.
51
04Chap3 44-54_11 51 6/9/05, 6:04 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Bush kept his platform of ideas short and avoided talk of

sacrifice. In the Republican primaries, Bush watched his
top rival, Bob Dole, lose in New Hampshire after refus-
ing to promise not to raise taxes and speaking of a need to
“tighten our [economic] belts.” So, Bush told the voters
to “read my lips: no new taxes.” Bush also said that he
would stand up to the Democratic Congress and turn down
their tax plans with veto after veto. His supporters tended
to forget this fact because it was a part of a longer state-
ment cut out by most of the media in order to make a
“sound bite.”
Bush spoke often of the “War on Drugs,” the need for

more military spending and his newly found programs
like childcare. Bush and the voters knew or should have
known that these programs would cost money. How did
Bush plan to find money for these programs without rais-
ing taxes?
At about $73 billion in 1980, the deficit had risen to 155

billion by 1988. It would rise all the way to a record
$290 billion in Bush’s final year as the President, 1992.
By that time, Bush would have to break his pledge and
raise taxes. Voters could have foreseen that Bush’s eco-
nomic plans would set the stage for economic disaster.
How did Bush claim so much support?
Simple. He borrowed another strategy from Reagan’s

playbook—he avoided specifics. Naturally, he did not
mention the budget deficit; instead, he pointed to low in-
flation and low unemployment. He also criticized
52
04Chap3 44-54_11 52 6/9/05, 6:04 AM

Dukakis’ talk of a “Massachusetts Miracle” by referring

to Dukakis as “Tax Hike Mike.” The implication was
clear—“Dukakis will tax you and I will not.”
Many people recall the second and final Bush-Dukakis

debate as the turning point of the election. In that debate,
Dukakis awkwardly answered a hypothetical question
about a rape and murder of his wife, Kitty.
However, the election had already been decided. The last

poll showing Dukakis leading took place in early Sep-
tember. By this time, voters had heard enough about taxes,
Horton, the pledge, etc. and made up their minds as to
whom to vote for.
Dukakis’ version of the “Massachusetts Miracle” focused

upon the economic turnaround during his years as gover-
nor. He called for a national version of the Massachu-
setts amnesty plan that gave tax evaders ninety days in
which to pay their arrearages. He refused to rule out a
raise in taxes.
Voters had a choice between a candidate who promised

no sacrifices (Bush) and one who refused to make that
type of promise (Dukakis). Bush paid no attention to long-
term consequences of poor fiscal management (such as
paying for debt) and instead invited voters to think about
short-term problems such as taxes, unemployment and
inflation. Voters were swayed more by the threat of higher
taxes than by debt: they chose Bush.
53
04Chap3 44-54_11 53 6/9/05, 6:04 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
The election of 1988 also hinged upon what have since

become known as “wedge” issues, or issues that divide
people by their values. Dukakis explained his veto of the
pledge, telling me it was “clearly unconstitutional.” Even
now he believes he made the right decision, even though
it contributed to his defeat.
Dukakis valued the Constitution of his commonwealth

more than his own popularity. Voters bought Bush’s ex-
planation of the veto because it appealed to something
they understood better than the foundation of our legal
system: a show of patriotism. Voters ignored the fact that
Bush defined the issue of patriotism for them.
Months after the election, Bush’s campaign manager, Lee

Atwater, on his deathbed, said that he regretted the harsh-
ness of the attacks against Dukakis. Bush never expressed
any such remorse. Perhaps he saw the election as a game,
a charade inflicted upon the voters every four years in
which the candidate who puts on the best act gets the win.
54
04Chap3 44-54_11 54 6/9/05, 6:04 AM

1988
Election
Candidate
of 1988:
of Altruism:
Flags and
Michael
Furloughs
Dukakis
55
05Chap4 55-62_8 55 6/9/05, 6:05 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
56
05Chap4 55-62_8 56 6/9/05, 6:05 AM

41988 Candidate of Altruism: Michael Dukakis
1988 Candidate
of Altruism:
Michael Dukakis
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“A good leader inspires others with confidence in him. A great
leader inspires them with confidence in themselves.” - Unknown
M
ichael Dukakis won election as governor of
Massachusetts in 1974. He served one term
before losing his bid for re-election in 1978.
Dukakis won back his job in 1982 and won
re-election in 1986. At the time of the 1988
election, he had served for ten years as the governor of
the commonwealth.
Dukakis Specifics
Dukakis stated during the campaign that “balancing the
budget would require hard choices mostly on the defense
side. I don’t see much room for cuts on the domestic
side.” Accordingly, he named specific defense programs
that he opposed: the Midgetman Missile, the Cruise Mis-
siles, the Pershing Missile, the Trident Submarine and
development of a 600-ship Navy.
He also made it clear that he would not use the military to

intervene in many of the situations that the incumbent
President Reagan had. Dukakis opposed the invasion of
Grenada that Reagan had ordered in 1983. He also op-
posed Reagan’s decisions to use the military to keep open
57
05Chap4 55-62_8 57 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
sea lanes in the Persian Gulf and to send U.S. troops to

Honduras in early 1988.
Dukakis Sacrifice
Dukakis flatly refused to rule out cuts in federal taxes. He
also said he would increase the number of IRS audits. These
ideas called upon people in the United States to pay taxes
fairly and without expectation that bending the rules would
be tolerated. Dukakis thus called for all to make the neces-
sary sacrifices of paying to help our government run.
Dukakis offered his own sacrifice to the voters by refus-

ing to renounce his decision to veto the bill that would
have made it a criminal offense for a teacher not to lead
the pledge of allegiance. Even when he saw he would
lose votes, he stood by his belief in following the consti-
tution instead of public opinion polls. This belief is the
essence of the constitutional system of government that
we have in the United States.
The Constitution serves to protect those with unpopular

views. Without it, our leaders could legislate ideas that
would unfairly discriminate against groups of people. For
example, without a Constitution, Congress, caught in a
movement led by anti-communists, could outlaw all forms
of media led by those with ties to communist groups. They
could go on to forbid people accused of being commu-
nists or communist sympathizers from receiving a trial.
People could be denied the chance to run for office if
they belong to organizations that defended the legal rights
of communists.
58
05Chap4 55-62_8 58 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

As unpopular an idea as communism may be, we need

the Constitution to protect them from this atrocity. If we
deprive one group of people from speaking or receiving
due process rights in our legal system, where would we
stop? Who else would be targeted? Our constitution pro-
tects the rights of all of us.
Dukakis Discussion of Ideas, Not Politicians

An opponent of Reagan Administration policies, Dukakis
nonetheless criticized the ideas and not the politician. He
criticized a key Reagan policy, the tax cut of 1981 as “one
of the biggest mistakes of recent American history.”
Even when the Bush campaign routinely singled out a

black man who attacked a white couple on television,
Dukakis refused to call Bush a racist. When one of the
Dukakis campaign staffers, Donna Brazile, accused the
Bush campaign of using “every code word and racial sym-
bol to package their little racist campaign,” one of
Dukakis’ senior advisors, Paul Brountas, fired her.
Here is a look at the key issues of 1988 and their deeper

concerns.
In the years between 1980 and 1988, the United States

for the first time became a debtor nation in three ways:
1. Our budget. In each of these years, our federal gov-

ernment spent more money than it brought in.
2. The national debt. The amount of money we bor-
rowed from our own people and other nations in-
59
05Chap4 55-62_8 59 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
creased from $1 trillion to $3 trillion.

3. Trade deficit. The value of imports outweighed the
value of exports.
The long-term implications of debtor status should alarm

any voter. However, the average voter does not see the prob-
lem and may not feel affected by it. Many voters are them-
selves in debt and, unless they must declare bankruptcy or
take some other extraordinary measure, they may not see
any need for urgency in addressing the national debt.
One immediate problem with the debt is that we must

pay interest on it. In the 1999 Fiscal Year, the United
States government paid $354 billion in interest payment,
the largest single item in the federal budget.
Who are the creditors to this debt? Private pension funds,

people who buy savings bonds, the Federal Reserve Board
and the Social Security Trust Fund, among people or
groups in the United States. Thirty-eight percent of the
debt is to foreign parties. Almost one-quarter of our for-
eign debt are to Japanese investors.
The debt challenges us to pay now or pay later. We could

continue to borrow money and allow the debt and its in-
terest payments to escalate. Then, future generations will
pay for this policy. Future United States budgets will
include huge “slices” devoted to the payment of interest
and thus have less money available for other programs.
Or, we could stop borrowing money and find another way
60
05Chap4 55-62_8 60 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

to fund programs in the current budget. We could work

to improve our trade deficit. This idea sounds great, but
we have not succeeded in recent years.
We could cut spending on federally funded programs. This

approach has its pitfalls, since most of the budget passes
without members of Congress seriously debating it. Quite
the opposite, our members of Congress are rewarded by
the people of their districts or their states for increasing
government funding for projects in their area. This tactic
of encouraging “pork barrel” projects is as old as our gov-
ernment. It pleases people back home, but actually in-
creases our budget deficits.
Another approach is to raise taxes to pay for the budget.

Never a popular idea, this way at least charges the tax-
payers that benefit from government services. It is more
fair to charge the same people who benefit, rather than
charge future generations. Yet politicians avoid the word
“tax” because it asks someone to make a sacrifice.
Republicans have often labeled Democrats like Dukakis as

favoring “tax and spend” policies. So what? By taxing to
raise money for expenditures, Democrats ask for payment
“up front.” Those who do not support expenditures by tax-
ing force the government to borrow money. Then, people in
later years must pay back the debt with interest.
Bush would learn, not long after he took office, how badly
he tied his hands by promising not to raise taxes during
the 1988 campaign. In the fall of 1990, he met with lead-
61
05Chap4 55-62_8 61 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
ers of Congress about the budget for the next fiscal year.
Given the choices of taxing to reconcile the budget or
draconian cuts in programs, he swallowed his pride and
agreed to raise taxes.
Though some Republicans cried “sellout,” many who sup-

ported Bush’s “no new taxes” pledge justified Bush’s change
in position. Lost in the whole discussion was the fact that
we, the voters, had fair warning a tax raise was inevitable
and that we voted for the “no tax” candidate anyhow.
By 1988, we knew some of the details of the Iran-Contra

scandal. We knew that the Reagan Administration clearly
contradicted its own policy of refusing to negotiate with
terrorists. We knew that Reagan shipped weapons to Iran
to attempt to obtain release of the hostages. We knew
many of the hostages had been held longer than the hos-
tages held under the Carter Administration. Reagan’s Vice
President, George Bush, claimed the Republican nomi-
nation, anyhow.
The Iran-Contra scandal cost Reagan much of his popu-

larity. Clearly, the public did not agree with Reagan’s
policy. How could we be sure that Bush would not resort
to trading weapons to one of our biggest enemies?
The logical way to make sure the next Administration did

not follow this policy would have been to elect a differ-
ent leader, Dukakis, a person not connected with the scan-
dal. But, as with taxes, we elected the candidate con-
nected with the policy that made no sense.
62
05Chap4 55-62_8 62 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

5 Election of 1992: It’s the Messenger, Stupid
Election of 1992:
It’s the Messenger,
Stupid
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap” – Napoleon
J
erry Brown stated that he would not accept con-
tributions of over $100 for his presidential cam-
paign in 1992. Years before, in winning two elec-
tions as governor of California, Brown excelled
at raising large sums of money. He later used his
fundraising skills as chair of the California Democratic Party.
Instead of asking the voters to make sacrifices, Brown

made a big sacrifice to make a point about a serious is-
sue: campaign finance reform.
The same politicians who take high contributions from

individuals and corporations to get elected have no in-
centive to change the policy. The politicians in Washing-
ton have failed to pass reform in Congress. No substan-
tial reform has passed Congress in recent years, nor have
reforms fared well at the state level.
As soon as Brown made this announcement, critics de-

nounced it as another “Governor Moonbeam” idea, a ref-
erence to Brown’s nickname as California’s governor.
Brown had rented an apartment instead of living in the
63
06Chap5 63-71_9 63 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Governor’s Mansion and had insisted upon driving a beat

up Plymouth instead of being chauffeured.
In a debate with his primary opponents on December 15,

1991, Brown discussed the influence money has on our po-
litical system. “Money from the very powerful people is
buying these campaigns, buying the incumbents, the presi-
dent, the Congress, the lobbyists, even candidates who are
here tonight. And the American people have lost control.”
Others in the Democratic Party were quick to denounce

him. One of his primary rivals, Bob Kerrey, even went
out of his way to deny that he (Kerrey) was “bought and
paid for.” Another rival, eventual nominee and President
Bill Clinton, called the campaign contributions necessary
and proposed no significant changes. Some in the media,
like Newsweek, were quick to tell Brown to “buzz off.”
Brown also proposed a “flat tax” to tax income at the

same percentage for all people and a “business-added”
tax to tax all sales in addition to sales tax. It marked one
of the few instances in which a Democrat proposed mak-
ing the tax system easier to understand. Before, the Demo-
cratic Party had proposed changes to the tax system to
help “working families” by extending credits for children
and education.
Again, his opponents ridiculed him, calling his tax plan

“flaky.” Clinton and Brown emerged after the early pri-
maries as the leading candidates. As they headed for the
New York primary, held April 7, Clinton held a wide lead
64
06Chap5 63-71_9 64 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

Election of 1992: It’s the Messenger, Stupid
in the race for delegates but Brown still had a chance to

catch him.
During this time, reporters first raised questions about

Whitewater, a scandal that would plague Clinton through-
out his two terms as President, and about his wife Hillary’s
work for a law firm that received money from the state of
Arkansas, Clinton’s state. The former referred to a land deal
the Clintons had made money from some years before.
During a debate, Brown responded to a question as to

whether he would agree to serve as Clinton’s running mate
by saying he had concerns about Clinton and the scan-
dals that he was allegedly involved in. Brown turned to
Clinton, held up a newspaper and said, “Your wife fun-
neled state money into her law firm and you were involved
in…Whitewater. I think you’re putting one over on the
American public. You have a big electability problem.
It’s right here in tomorrow’s Washington Post.”
Clinton exploded at Brown, “How dare you attack my

wife!” For the next two minutes, Clinton ranted about
how “Jerry Brown reinvents himself every five years”
and how he would never ask Brown to be his running
mate. This sound bite made the news repeatedly for the
next several days. A third participant in the debate, Paul
Tsongas, later joked that he lost his chance for publicity
by not moving between Clinton and Brown to break up
their argument.
In his rebuttal, Clinton thus framed the issues for the rest
65
06Chap5 63-71_9 65 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
of the primaries. He touted himself and his wife as a

“team” but failed to address the possible downside of such
a partnership (his wife’s possible unethical acts). He care-
fully toned his naming of his rival to sound like Lucy in
Peanuts saying “Charlie Brown,” as if to tell voters that
something was wrong with the messenger. By attacking
the messenger, he could avoid all of the message.
Clinton’s ratings in the polls after the debate soared, es-

pecially with female voters. Many women had previously
been suspicious of Clinton for his extra-marital involve-
ment with Gennifer Flowers. The cabaret singer brought
forward tape-recorded conversations she had had with
Clinton, who acknowledged the conversations but denied
the affair. Now these same female voters suddenly found
Clinton likable after he defended his wife.
After talking about Hillary Clinton and Jerry Brown, Clinton

finally got around to discussing taxes. Clinton gave a brief
description of the flat tax as a plan that would benefit the
rich too much and promoted his own plan to raise taxes on
the wealthiest two percent of the population. He also from
time to time discussed a tax cut on the “forgotten middle
class” but never explained who this group was.
Clinton, like Reagan and Bush, kept his sales pitch simple
and avoided asking for sacrifices. He knew that few of
the 2% group he targeted for a tax increase were likely to
vote for him, anyway. So, to the audiences to whom he
addressed his message in the primaries, Clinton did not
really ask for anything.
66
06Chap5 63-71_9 66 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

And, just as Reagan and Bush portrayed Carter and

Dukakis, respectively, as undesirable candidates, Clinton
effectively used this technique by warning Democrats
about Jerry Brown and his tax plan as for the rich. Each
of these candidates presented themselves as “less unde-
sirable” than his leading opponent.
Why don’t the voters reject this approach and pick the
candidate who speaks of him or herself the most clearly?
The answer could be in our political culture. Because of

the Watergate, Vietnam and Iran-Contra (and more re-
cently, Clinton’s Impeachment) scandals, we simply do
not trust our politicians. We expect politicians to have
flaws and believe these flaws exist. When one politician
attacks another, we give the attack higher credibility than
a politician saying positive things about themselves.
Politicians, in turn, feed upon our negative perceptions.

They know that the voters do not like them much. In
fact, the voters’ attitude about politicians is analogous to
their attitude about commercials.
Companies selling products on television have long known

that they only hold viewer attention for a short period of
time. So they have spent heavily on 15- and 30-second
commercials, or “spots.” Politicians have caught on to
this strategy, both with commercials and with “sound
bites,” the replaying on the news of memorable lines ut-
tered by politicians.
67
06Chap5 63-71_9 67 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
The length of a sound bite has gone down from 43 seconds

on network TV news in 1968 to 9 seconds in 1988. Accord-
ingly, politicians utter short statements to get their point across
because they know the news will condense or even ignore
longer comments. So, we hear statements like George Bush’s
“read my lips: no new taxes” over and over just like we see
the latest Cola commercial repeatedly.
How would the Gettysburg Address be reviewed on the

news if Abraham Lincoln gave it today?
In reality, this historical speech went like this:
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers

brought forth on this continents a new na-
tion conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war test-
ing whether that nation, or any nation so con-
ceived and so dedicated, can long endure.
We are met on a great battlefield of that

war. We have come to dedicate a portion
of that field as a final resting-place for
those who here gave their lives that the
nation might live. It is altogether fitting
that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate,

we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow
this ground. The brave men, living and
68
06Chap5 63-71_9 68 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

dead, who struggled here have consecrated

it far above our poor power to add or de-
tract. The world will little note nor long
remember what we say here, but it can
never forget what they did here.
It is for us the living rather to be dedicated

here to the unfinished work which they who
fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here to the great task
remaining before us — that from these hon-
ored dead we take increased devotion to that
cause for which they gave the last full mea-
sure of devotion — that we here highly re-
solve that these dead shall not have died in
vain, that this nation under God shall have a
new birth of freedom, and that government
of the people, by the people, for the people
shall not perish from the earth.
Each newscast would probably show a film clip focused

on Lincoln, saying the words “…government of the
people, by the people, for the people…” The news would
likely not inform the viewer of the significance of the
battle or the war going on.
Clinton gave better sound bites than Brown. Reporters

covering Clinton could easily point to Clinton statements
and repeat them in their stories. Television and radio news
could fit in Clinton’s quotes without much problem. For
example:
69
06Chap5 63-71_9 69 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
• “Chill out, Jerry.” – Clinton used this quote effectively

to tell Brown he was getting carried away with his
ideas on campaign finance reform and taxes.
• “How dare you attack my wife!” This clip from the

debate with Brown got more airtime than Brown’s
preceding accusations.
• “Thank you for making me the Comeback Kid!” He

used this sound bite to thank the New Hampshire voters
for his second place showing in the primary after many
had counted him out due to questions about how he
avoided the draft as a young man and rumors of woman-
izing. This quote was so effective that he got more news
coverage than the first-place finisher, Paul Tsongas.
Brown, on the other hand, often gave detailed explana-

tions of his ideas. In explaining why he would not accept
contributions of more than $100, he would explain that
the old system, of which he had been a part, promoted
corruption. Thus, he explained that the problem of cam-
paign finance reform was systemic and that his opponents
were symptoms of that problem by continuing to take large
sums of money.
Like Dukakis’ attacks on George Bush, the voters could

not “see” the corruption any better than they could under-
stand the Constitution. Brown did not offer a near pack-
age of comforting sayings. Instead, he challenged the
voters to follow him in his “insurgency.”
70
06Chap5 63-71_9 70 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

Maybe voters did not understand Brown’s choice of

words. Other politicians would have selected a term
like “revolution.”
Webster’s New World Dictionary defines the word in-

surgent as “designating or of a faction in revolt against
the leadership of a political party.” It defines revolu-
tion as “a complete or radical change…overthrow of a
government.”
Brown indeed tried to change his political party with two

specific reforms. He thus selected the term more accu-
rate to his campaign for the presidency. This choice of
words showed a need by Brown to be specific.
Clinton won the New York primary. When the results

showed Brown third behind Tsongas, who had suspended
his campaign, the contest for the Democratic nomination,
in effect, ended. The Democrats would close ranks be-
hind a candidate who practiced the politics of vagueness
and attacking the opponents so well, Bill Clinton.
71
06Chap5 63-71_9 71 6/9/05, 6:06 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
72
07Chap6 72-79_8 72 6/9/05, 6:07 AM

6 1992 Candidate of Altruism: Jerry Brown
1992 Candidate
of Altruism:
Jerry Brown
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“Washington is a place where the truth is not necessarily the best defense.
It surely runs a poor second to the statute of limitations.” – Peter Lisagor
E dmund G. “Jerry” Brown won election as gover-

nor of the state of California in 1974. He served
for two terms before trying, unsuccessfully, for
one of California’s United States Senate seats in
1982. For several years, he became involved in activities
away from politics, such as spending time with Mother
Teresa in feeding the poor. Then, he won election as the
chair of the California Democratic Party in 1989, a post
at which he served for two years.
Here is a look at the leading issues of 1992 and their deeper

concerns:
At home, our national debt had risen to $4 trillion by 1992.

President Bush could no longer get away with promising
“no new taxes” after his debacle in 1990 in which he found
he had to raise taxes. Not only had his credibility suf-
fered, the idea of lowering taxes to solve economic prob-
lems had also lost favor with some voters.
In foreign affairs, the Cold War had ended. Mikhail

Gorbachev formally disbanded the Soviet Union in late
73
07Chap6 72-79_8 73 6/9/05, 6:07 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
1991 and allowed Boris Yeltsin’s Russia to take its place

on the United Nations Security Council. Yeltsin also
gained control of most of the Soviet nuclear weapons and
armed forces.
With this new hegemony, voters no longer saw the “Evil

Empire” Reagan had used to justify his military buildup.
Republicans could not use the need to “stop communism”
as a reason to support their defense programs over those
of the Democrats.
Instead the biggest problems in 1992 were within our

nation:
• Unemployment remained high throughout the year,

at about six percent. Most economists agreed we were
in a recession.
• The United States faced problems with race and class.

In April 1992, many people in Los Angeles, disen-
chanted with the acquittal of four police officers in a
beating of a black motorist, rioted, causing 50 deaths
and millions of dollars in damages to property.
• Women demanded more representation in government

by running for office themselves. Many complained
that an all-male committee held hearings on Anita
Hill’s allegations that Supreme Court nominee
Clarence Thomas harassed her. In what became
known as the “Year of the Woman,” four women won
election to the United States Senate, including both
74
07Chap6 72-79_8 74 6/9/05, 6:07 AM

1992 Candidate of Altruism: Jerry Brown
seats in California. The number of women in Con-

gress increased by 22.
Voters transcended this disenchantment. Many became

interested in a billionaire who announced his interest in
running for President on “Larry King Live,” Ross Perot.
Perot eventually succeeding in getting on all 50 ballots as
an independent and became only the second third-party
candidate (after John Anderson) to debate on national tele-
vision with major-party candidates.
The year provided so many changes that the average voter

had trouble keeping track of everything. Long gone were
the days that a voter expressed enthusiasm for politicians
— Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra and the Bush broken
tax pledge all took care of that.
Instead, an increased number of voters seriously ques-

tioned their government, albeit in varying degrees. Some
voters became fans of conspiracy theories because of the
Oliver Stone movie “JFK.” The movie, released in De-
cember 1991, questioned the government’s official inves-
tigation on President Kennedy’s death, the Warren Re-
port. The report states that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone
in killing the president, while critics maintain that groups
within our government orchestrated the assassination.
I recall attending lectures by critics such as Fletcher

Prouty, who had worked for the CIA at the time of the
assassination; Robert Groden, a photography expert; and
David Lifton, a doctor who disputed autopsy reports. For
75
07Chap6 72-79_8 75 6/9/05, 6:07 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
a time in 1992, attendance at these events became a popu-

lar gathering and a chance for us to reflect about what
was wrong with our nation. President Bush’s prior ser-
vice as director of the CIA (a leading culprit in the assas-
sination to some critics) fueled the feeling of cynicism.
Other, more extreme, groups sprouted throughout the na-

tion, especially in sparsely populated areas like Idaho and
Montana. They encouraged people to arm themselves
against a pending government assault on its people. This
way of thinking later became known as the “militia” move-
ment and represented a total lack of trust in our leaders.
In October 1991, Jerry Brown entered the race in order to

“take back America.” He decried the “incompetent” alli-
ance of big campaign donors, lobbyists and corporate
executives who had driven the nation into “economic de-
cline while they prosper at the expense of the rest of us.”
He blasted both the Republican and Democratic leaders
as members of one “Incumbent” party which “betrays the
public interest for the massive financial support re-elec-
tion requires.”
Brown had standing to criticize both of the major parties.

He had acquired a reputation as an independent thinker
from his days as governor of California. Throughout the
campaign, he would reinforce this independence by say-
ing that he wouldn’t “get along by going along” with the
majority of the Democratic Party.
With the popularity of corporate “downsizing,” employed
76
07Chap6 72-79_8 76 6/9/05, 6:07 AM

voters could not be sure how long they would last at their
jobs. The 1992 voter wanted security — if not in the
form of employment, then in the form of health care. At
this point, more than 40 million people in the United States
lacked any form of health care coverage.
While Bush continued to balk at the costs of universal

coverage (as he had in 1988), all of the Democratic can-
didates and Ross Perot offered plans to cover more people.
Jerry Brown proposed universal health care coverage
through a “single-payer” system in which everyone in the
United States would pay taxes towards an agency. This
agency would pay most costs for each individual.
Brown Specifics
Brown proposed a new tax to help cover this cost— the “Busi-
ness-added Tax” of 13% for purchases in goods in addition
to the 13% “flat tax” on income. He gave a specific amount
of money that the taxes would raise, $8 trillion, enough, in
his estimation to pay for the national health care system.
These ideas on taxes were not popular. But, unlike

Clinton, he had a substantive plan for funding his spend-
ing proposals. Like Anderson, he asked all of us for sac-
rifices. Like Dukakis, he refused to make a pledge like
not raising taxes for political popularity.
Brown Sacrifice
Just as important to Brown as the money raised by the
taxes was the concept that a flat tax with few deductions
(rent, charity, and home mortgage) would prevent special
77
07Chap6 72-79_8 77 6/9/05, 6:07 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
interests from bargaining with legislators for tax breaks.

He thus asked special interest groups to sacrifice for the
greater good of the nation.
Voters had by 1992 become frustrated with the way candi-

dates raised huge sums of money in order to get elected. In
the previous election, both Dukakis and Bush had raised more
money than their opponents for their respective nominations
to continue a trend for both parties over several years.
Jerry Brown presented a logical solution to the problem

of rich individuals buying off or influencing politicians—
he refused to take contributions of more than $100 from
any individual. No other leading candidate for president
has ever before or since made and kept such a pledge.
Brown Discussion of Ideas, not Politicians

As for the growing cynicism, Brown said that he did not
support conspiracy theories. He did, however gain the
support of Stone and others who followed conspiracy theo-
ries by calling for the opening of government files on the
JFK assassination. Brown wanted an open government
fully accountable to its people.
Jerry Brown’s candidacy did not consist of lengthy pro-

posals or promises. His candidacy instead took action on
issues that he cared about and set an example. Brown did
not wait for change; rather, he created it on his own. Even
with a budget considerably less than that of his opponents,
Brown continued all the way to the Convention, where
78
07Chap6 72-79_8 78 6/9/05, 6:07 AM

he spoke glowingly of the need to “speak truth to power.”

Brown made no promises to bring economic prosperity
back to the United States. Neither did Anderson or
Dukakis. All of them reasoned with the voters and re-
fused to make promises they could not keep. All of them
exhibit the best traits of the altruistic candidate for presi-
dent by placing their focus upon governing ahead of their
need for popularity.
79
07Chap6 72-79_8 79 6/9/05, 6:07 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
80
08Chap7 80-101_22 80 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

7 Reforming the Voters
Reforming the
Voters
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“When the candidates appeal to ‘Every intelligent voter’ they mean
everybody who is going to vote for them.” – Franklin P. Adams
R
esults of recent presidential elections have pro-
duced certain trends among the voters. The re-
turns have given us an idea of the boundaries
that candidates face as they each try to assemble
the largest coalition of voters.
Some candidates in recent years have won election

without receiving a majority of the vote. Strong third-
party showings in 1968, 1992 and 1996 took enough
votes from the main party candidates to cause this re-
sult. A growing number of people who identify them-
selves as “independents” or members of third parties
has cut into the number of voters a major party candi-
date can rely upon.
Forty – Forty – Twenty

With very few exceptions, presidential candidates in the
two main parties have received at least forty percent of
the vote. Since 1968, only George McGovern (1972) and
George Bush (1992) have failed to make this level.
In an ordinary election, a typical Democratic or Republi-
81
08Chap7 80-101_22 81 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
can presidential candidate can thus count on about 40%

of the electorate and must compete for the remaining 20%.
Though a minority, this group, the “balance,” actually
decides most elections. Consider the election of 1980:
Reagan won 51% of the vote. He kept the traditional

Republican base (the economic upper class, business
owners, the highly religious) and captured more than half
of the voters undecided about party voting preference.
Carter’s low popularity also caused many Democrats to
vote for Reagan. This last bloc of voters numbered so
many that they received the name “Reagan Democrats”
and were identified as such by future Democratic presi-
dential campaigns.
Carter received only 41% of the vote. This number sug-

gests he had trouble keeping his own party in line and
that he did poorly with the balance of the voters.
Anderson took almost 7% as an independent. With no

formal party backing (he had left the Republicans), he
needed the balance to vote for him in order to make an
impact upon the election. His percentage of the vote shows
that he appealed to about one-third of this important group.
What does the balance consider in determining what candi-
date to vote for? The analogy of a company accepting bids
for a contract provides us with an answer. These voters have
no official allegiance to ideas or issues. Like the company
taking bids, the balance cares most about the “bottom line,”
their economic and social well being.
82
08Chap7 80-101_22 82 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

Reforming the Voters
They care about how much in taxes they will have to pay.
They care about whether they are likely to keep their job.
They care about whether they will have the right to change
the things they do not like.
Reagan did the best with this group of voters. Is it a coinci-

dence that he focused his message upon lower taxes with so
many in the balance concerned over taxes? Or that he prom-
ised to raise defense spending and thus ensure jobs for those who
contracted with the government to make weapons? Not at all.
Newt Gingrich once proposed a “Contract with America.”

He and his party promised to promote various policies in
exchange for the votes. He put in words what many poli-
ticians had done before him: make a deal with us.
We give politicians our vote expecting something back

from the official if they get elected. For some, that “some-
thing” is the satisfaction of policies that they believe are
good; others want assurances or promises.
Candidates do not need to make “deals” with the voters

of their own party. This bloc of approximately 40 per-
cent predictably votes for the candidate of their party.
Besides, the promises a main party candidate makes are
usually the same principles of the candidate’s party.
For example, when Reagan promised tax cuts, most Re-

publicans were already persuaded about the idea. The
Republican Party’s endorsement of the Kemp-Roth tax
83
08Chap7 80-101_22 83 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
cuts early in 1980 before the primaries provides evidence

of this fact, along with the party’s tradition of supporting
less taxes. Thus, Reagan looked beyond his own party
and into the Democratic Party and the “balance” of vot-
ers not aligned with any party.
A close look at what each candidate promised shows vast

differences in sacrifice:
None of Reagan’s promises called for a sacrifice directly.

Both of Carter’s and all of Anderson’s did involve sacri-
fices by at least some people.
By making two easy promises to keep, Reagan misled

voters into thinking that the bad economy would heal it-
self. Eight years of Reaganomics would prove this theory
wrong. Reagan quadrupled our national debt, in large
part because of his tax cuts. He never proposed a bal-
anced budget.
The problem was not that Reagan made promises that

involved no sacrifices. The voters had a choice. Most of
them chose to see the state of the nation through the rose-
colored lenses provided them by Reagan. The voters in
the balance could have made the difference by voting to
make sacrifices.
Voter’s Rules
In the 1972 election, McGovern’s support for legalized
abortion and drastic cuts in defense spending turned off
many conservative Democrats, many of whom organized
84
08Chap7 80-101_22 84 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

to form “Democrats for Nixon.” Nixon won a landslide,

taking every state except for Massachusetts.
To a lesser extent, other recent candidates faced defec-

tions similar to McGovern. In 1980 and 1984, groups of
Democrats later to be known as “Reagan Democrats”
voted for Republican Reagan in the presidential elections.
Democratic candidates Carter and Mondale, respectively,
received 41 percent of the vote each.
Voters have thus sent to Democratic and Republican can-

didates a message that I will call Voter’s Rule Number
One — don’t approach us without the backing of your
own party.
Bush faced an election-year recession and a well-financed

third party candidate, Ross Perot. Perot took votes away
from Bush and Clinton in receiving 19% of the total vote.
Bush received only 38% in his defeat.
Carter faced a recession during his re-election year of

1980 and paid for it dearly. On the other side, eco-
nomic recoveries propelled incumbents Reagan and
Clinton to victories in 1984 and 1996. In the history
of presidential elections, only one incumbent president
has lost during an economic growth period — Gerald
Ford in 1976. The extenuating circumstances of Ford
being appointed to the vice presidency and then suc-
ceeding Nixon who resigned due to a scandal likely
explain Ford’s loss to Jimmy Carter.
85
08Chap7 80-101_22 85 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Voter’s Rule Number Two: If you are the incumbent, we

will hold you responsible for the state of the economy.
These rules sound reasonable, but each has its flaws.

Suppose, for example, that most Democrats supported
allowing non-citizens the right to vote. One Democrat,
who happened to be running for President, said that she
did not agree with the idea because it violated the Consti-
tution and because it gave more privileges to a group of
people than the group contributed to society.
She considers leaving the Democratic Party over this is-

sue but decides not to because she agrees with the party
on most other important issues. Other Democrats, upset
at her stance on this issue, run against her for the Demo-
cratic nomination. But the group splits its votes too much
and hands the nomination to her.
Now our hypothetical candidate is like McGovern, a ma-

jor party nominee missing a significant amount of that
party’s support. How will she fare? According to the
message of the voters in recent elections, not very well.
Voters have not been attracted to major party candidates
who do not have the support of their party.
Are candidates who do not have the complete support of

their respective parties less equipped to govern? It de-
pends upon why they failed to obtain that support. Many
Democrats abandoned McGovern for Nixon because of
what they perceived as radical policies. It turned out later
that some of McGovern’s ideas were not at all radical.
86
08Chap7 80-101_22 86 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

His proposals to withdraw all U.S. troops from Vietnam,

implement affirmative action, and end the draft all found
favor in the Nixon Administration.
Knowing that the voters will not tolerate dissension in a

candidate’s party members, a candidate will be less in-
clined to challenge their own party and thus less likely to
articulate their opinions. They may hesitate to ask voters
already suspicious of them to sacrifice. Voter’s Rule
Number One thus influences a candidate to exhibit traits
of egocentricity instead of altruism.
Voter’s Rule Number Two punishes presidents for nega-

tive economic factors, such as high unemployment and
rewards presidents for positive factors. We rely heavily
upon the economy to get jobs, pay reasonable prices for
goods and to afford housing through low interest rates.
Why shouldn’t we vote to remove a president like Bush
or Carter for presiding over a poor economy?
There may well have been valid reasons to remove Bush

and Carter, such as their lack of clarity in what their
administrations stood for. But to remove a president
solely for a poor economy would set poor precedent.
A short explanation of the two leading factors of the
economy, inflation and unemployment, shows why.
Inflation and Unemployment

Inflation is “a persistent increase in the level of consumer
prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of
money, caused by an increase in available currency and
87
08Chap7 80-101_22 87 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
credit beyond the proportion of available goods and ser-

vices.” (Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dic-
tionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996
by Houghton Mifflin Company.) In other words, those
who regulate the currency (the government) must ensure
that enough money is available for consumers to buy the
goods and services.
Economists agree that there are different types of inflation.

One is called demand-pull inflation, which occurs when the
total demand for goods and services exceeds the supply of
those goods and services. This demand “pulls” up wages
and prices. Wages go up because with the increase in the
demand for services, those who provide the services have
less competition and can increase what they ask for. Simi-
larly, prices go up because of a decrease in competition among
those selling goods. Another type, cost-push inflation, takes
place when prices rise to cover profits.
Deflation is “a persistent decrease in the level of consumer

prices or a persistent increase in the purchasing power of
money because of a reduction in available currency and
credit.”(Ibid.) Not to be confused with a steady drop in the
rate of inflation, deflation means a drop in the prices and wages.
Unemployment is the “enforced idleness of wage earners
who are able and willing to work but cannot find jobs.”
(Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia © & 1996-97
Microsoft Corporation.) The United States Bureau of
Labor further defines the unemployed as “persons are clas-
sified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have ac-
88
08Chap7 80-101_22 88 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

tively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are cur-
rently available for work.” It measures unemployment
by dividing the number of unemployed by the sum of the
unemployed and employed.
As with inflation, several factors cause unemployment.

A person may lose their job and be unable to find a new
one right away (also known as frictional unemployment).
Or, a person may lose their job during a time of year that
their industry does not traditionally do well, such as those
who sell Christmas trees (seasonal unemployment). A
person may lack the skills for a job in the industry in which
they seek a job (structural unemployment). Or, the in-
dustry in question may not have a high demand for labor
(cyclical unemployment).
Sometimes, the government acts to create jobs. Franklin

Roosevelt, for example, created work for one-quarter of
one million people by forming the Civilian Conservation
Corps. Raising defense spending can create jobs in the
public sector. In the context of overall unemployment,
however, such policies make little difference since most
jobs are within the private sector.
Private employers have certain laws to follow which af-

fect their hiring practices. With a few exceptions, all
employers must pay at least the minimum wage to each
employee. Employers also may be required to follow af-
firmative action plans upon a court finding that they have
discriminated against protected groups of people.
89
08Chap7 80-101_22 89 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
For the most part, though, these laws do not affect em-
ployment of great numbers of people. Though some ar-
gue that a minimum wage prevents new employees from
getting jobs, the money spent on these wages is simply
too low to make much of difference. And, while job dis-
crimination is justifiably punishable, it does not affect
overall employment since it replaces one unemployed
person with another.
Concern for profit influences private sector employment

decisions than the law. To make a profit, an employer
cannot hire more people than necessary to carry out the
work. When employers find themselves in this situation,
they lay people off or reduce the hours of some employ-
ees. When several businesses within a given industry
begin laying people off, overall employment starts to
measure the impact.
What might cause an industry to need fewer workers?

One example would be fewer resources. During the OPEC
oil embargoes of the 1970s in which several nations
stopped delivering oil to the United States, our gasoline
distributors had less oil to transport, less oil to make into
gasoline and less gasoline to sell. Thus, they needed fewer
employees to handle those jobs.
Other industries that relied upon oil suffered as well.

With the gasoline shortage, fewer people drove their
cars. Many others discarded automobiles that used up
too much. As a result, car repair and maintenance shops
required fewer people.
90
08Chap7 80-101_22 90 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

If we held the president responsible for unemployment

and inflation, we encourage the president to try economic
strategies that provide results in the short-term (i.e. just
before their re-election) and which cause damages in the
long-term. Reagan’s economic plan of cutting taxes on
the wealthy may have “jump-started” some businesses,
but the decrease in revenues to the government along with
the increase in expenditures upon defense caused a qua-
drupling of the national debt.
Removing the president for a bad economy would penal-

ize a president for factors that he or she cannot control. A
president cannot propose legislation to Congress to de-
crease inflation directly. Some policies, such as a reduc-
tion of the number of dollars printed, can be persuaded
by the president of the Department of Treasury, but could
cause their own set of problems such as a decrease in
wages, another economic problem.
Voter’s Rule Number Two assigns too great a reward or

punishment for a result that the president, at most, is par-
tially responsible for. It rewards the type of short-term
planning favored by candidates with vague policies. The
rule also persuades candidates to attack a president for
events not connected to policies, the tendency of the
egocentrics.
Special Interest Groups
What is it that voters want?
91
08Chap7 80-101_22 91 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
We sometimes learn of voters’ interests in studying the po-

litical groups that they belong to. Many voters identify
strongly with a group or groups. Some belong to organiza-
tions that lobby the government to make certain policies.
One example is the National Rifle Association, which dis-
courages laws that regulate the sale of guns. Such groups
are called “special interest groups” because they want the
government to take a special interest in their causes.
Participation in these groups fits within the First Amend-

ment to the Constitution, which provides that “Congress
shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe-
tition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The
Supreme Court has held that the states must follow these
principles as well. Many people join political action com-
mittees, which donate money to candidates.
However, voters make it difficult for presidential candi-

dates to follow the altruistic principles of being specific
and asking for sacrifices when they identify so strongly
with specific stands on issues. Consider this hypotheti-
cal dilemma created by the emergence of special inter-
ests in presidential elections:
Candidate X seeks the nomination of the Republican Party.

He identifies his stands on prevalent issues. For instance,
X supports a woman’s right to choose an abortion, sup-
ports background checks and five-day waiting periods for
those who wish to purchase guns and supports limits on
campaign contributions.
92
08Chap7 80-101_22 92 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

Candidate Y also seeks the nomination. She opposes abor-

tion rights except in the case of rape, incest and the en-
dangerment of the woman’s life. She opposes restric-
tions upon a person’s right to purchase a gun and opposes
any limits to campaign contributions.
The candidates can likely picture how the votes will be di-
vided. The more voters insist that one issue will dominate
their vote, the easier candidates can position themselves to
get votes. Here, X and Y will attract the votes of those who
identify any of the three issues as determinative of their vote.
Typically, the strength of these voters’ beliefs corresponds

to the extremity of their position. Take the issue of abor-
tion. If a voter seriously wants abortion outlawed, they
will regard this issue as more important to them than an
issue they have mixed feelings about. Those who want to
outlaw all abortions are more likely to demand “purity”
from political candidates than those who are willing to
compromise on issues are.
The more of these “single-issue” voters, the less likely the

candidates will focus on other issues. It is thus possible is-
sues of significance will be ignored. But let us suppose that
these three issues are the most important of the campaign.
The debate between X and Y, though predictable, would

feature discussion of the right topics. Furthermore, nei-
ther candidate has any incentive to change their position
on an issue nor speak vaguely about it. If most voters are
pro-choice on abortion, for example, X will state his po-
93
08Chap7 80-101_22 93 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
sition clearly and if necessary, press Y to state hers. Can-

didate ideas would not be a mystery to the voters.
Candidate Z has been considering a run. Z opposes abortion

in all circumstances and also opposes gun control and changes
in rules on soft money. He notices a poll that shows that
most Republican voters are pro-life. Seizing it as his issue,
he announces his candidacy before the Christian Coalition
vowing to “end abortion as we know it.”
Now Y must compete with Z for the pro-life vote. In

ordinary circumstances, competition would be welcome.
Competition among restaurants, for example, keeps prices
down. But in the politics of single-issue voting, voters
tend to lose perspective of what is best for our nation.
After Y and Z each state their specific positions on abor-

tion, each will be tempted to make promises to persuade
more pro-life voters to go to the polls. Z promises to sign
the “toughest anti-abortion” law possible his first day in
office and criticizes Y for believing abortion is accept-
able in some circumstances. Y responds by promising
only to nominate pro-life judges. Z says he will do the
same and that he will nominate a pro-life running mate.
Money and volunteer support pour into the Z campaign.
The debate goes on but lost in the shuffle is the reality of

this issue. First of all, the Supreme Court made a ruling
on this issue in 1973 known as Roe v Wade. This deci-
sion established that neither the federal government nor
the states may make abortion illegal. Pro-life politicians
94
08Chap7 80-101_22 94 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

often fail to acknowledge this point, an omission that

makes their arguments vague.
Other pro-life politicians talk about overturning Roe. This

scenario could only take place under one of two circum-
stances, a constitutional amendment or a new Supreme
Court ruling that explicitly reversed Roe. Neither one of
these circumstances will ever likely occur.
Our nation has amended the Constitution only seventeen

times in two hundred years since the passage of the Bill
of Rights. Those who wrote the Constitution deliberately
made it difficult to change it. They required a two-thirds
vote in both the House of Representatives and the United
States Senate AND ratification by three-quarters of the
state legislatures.
Due to the difficulty of passage, only amendments that

reflect true national consensus have made the require-
ments. The Twenty-sixth Amendment, which lowered the
voting age from twenty-one to eighteen, passed during
the Vietnam War. Few people could continue to justify
sending people to fight wars without first allowing them
to vote for the leaders who sent them.
This same consensus does not exist in regards to abor-

tion. Reasonable people differ in opinion throughout the
nation. Polls have shown that while there is much con-
cern about abortion, most people favor its legality. No
amendment can pass without majority support, as evi-
denced by the requirements set forth in the Constitution.
95
08Chap7 80-101_22 95 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Twice in recent years, the Supreme Court has had an op-

portunity to overturn Roe and has chosen not to do so.
1989’s Webster v Reproductive Health Services and in
1992’s Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylva-
nia v Casey, which upheld the legality of abortion, the
court included justices chosen by pro-life Presidents—
for example, David Souter and William Rehnquist, cho-
sen by Bush and Nixon, respectively.
Rarely acknowledged by such pro-life presidential candi-

dates like Pat Buchanan is that these decisions allow restric-
tions on abortions after the point of “viability,” the point at
which a fetus could survive outside the mother’s womb. With
emotional issues like abortion, it is “all-or-nothing” with
many voters. Extreme positions like banning abortion thus
appeal to some candidates who will be forced to acknowl-
edge after election that they cannot be held.
Furthermore, the leading special interest groups do not

believe in sacrifice. The National Rifle Association speaks
proudly of its efforts to protect “our right to keep and
bear arms” by opposing all legislation that might even re-
motely infringe upon it, like background checks. The Ameri-
can Association of Retired Persons calls for a “rational de-
bate” on issues such as the cost-of-living-adjustments
(COLAs) to Social Security but adamantly opposes a freeze
to anyone’s benefits. The American Israeli Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) “works to make sure that every candi-
date understands the pro-Israel community’s point of views.”
One of their views is that Jerusalem is the “undivided capital
of Israel,” despite honest disagreements of this view from
96
08Chap7 80-101_22 96 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

Israel’s neighbors and their supporters.
Each of these groups has the right to distribute its opin-

ions to the candidates and to the voters. But each should
watch its hardheadedness. It is from these single-issue
groups that politicians learn some of their language of
vagueness and refusal to sacrifice. When these groups
stubbornly refuse to compromise or even acknowledge
another point of view, they become a part of the problem
of electing egocentric leaders.
Religion and Politics

Another group influences politics profoundly — the
churches. The Christian Coalition for years distributed
its voter guides to churches until cited by the IRS for vio-
lation of the Internal Revenue Code. Not long ago, in a
gubernatorial election in New Jersey, one candidate’s
manager went to the churches to tell preachers to tell their
churchgoers not to participate in the election, for fear they
would vote for the opponent.
Whether the churches will stay out of politics remains to

be seen, but there is little doubt that politicians will not
stay out of the churches. In the 2000 election, most can-
didates have spoken of their religious faith. Some have,
despite constitutional provisions for the separation of
church and state, suggested giving taxpayer’s money to
religious schools.
Electability Reform
We need to reform how we view the candidates. At the time
97
08Chap7 80-101_22 97 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
of this writing, George W. Bush is the front-runner for the

Republican nomination and the election. Bill Bradley and
Al Gore are competing for the Democratic nomination.
Often, political observers are using the term

“electability” without first explaining what the term
means. If they mean a candidate’s chances to win an
election, they run the risk of deciding an election on
behalf of the entire voting population. If they mean
the candidate’s abilities, they need to explain to the
viewers what abilities they are looking for.
We need a President who will ask us to make sacrifices

for the good of the whole society. If that means paying
higher taxes or using gasoline less, we, the voters should
not punish a candidate who sincerely believes that these
are good policies for all of us.
We need a President willing to be clear about his/her poli-

cies, even if it means losing some support. We, the voters
should not reward candidates who refuse to be specific
about their ideas by voting for them. We need a President
consistent with his/her message. If that means the candi-
date loses support with interest groups who don’t like the
message, we the public should give that candidate our
respect for having the courage to face a hostile audience.
Long after the effects of tax raises or low gasoline prices,

we, the voters must deal with more significant issues, such
as why we don’t get the best leadership possible to handle
the multitude of problems a President must handle. Hon-
98
08Chap7 80-101_22 98 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

esty, clarity and consistency are three of the best tools our
leader could carry in solving those problems.
We Reward Optimists
With the exception of 1968, when Richard Nixon nar-
rowly defeated Hubert Humphrey, the voters have cho-
sen the Presidential candidate with the most upbeat mes-
sage in recent years.
Nixon beat George McGovern in 1972 by talking about

his successful visit to China, improved relations with the
Soviet Union and the impending end to the United States’
involvement in Vietnam. Nixon labeled McGovern the
candidate of “Acid, Amnesty and Abortion.” Never mind
the charges were not totally accurate (McGovern favored
decriminalization of marijuana, not all drugs, for example)
– the charges stuck and Nixon won easily.
Jimmy Carter told the voters in 1976 that he would “never

lie” to them and spoke of a “government as good as its
people” while his opponent, President Ford, tried to ex-
plain to the voters why he pardoned Nixon for his in-
volvement in the Watergate scandal. Voters bought the
line and elected Carter.
Reagan said it was “morning in America” in 1984 and

that the nation should “Go for the Gold!” (a reference to
the Olympics in Los Angeles that year). Voters agreed
and rewarded him with a landslide victory over Walter
Mondale, who had talked about raising taxes.
99
08Chap7 80-101_22 99 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
George Bush pledged “no new taxes” in 1988 and attacked

the patriotism of his opponent, Michael Dukakis, for ve-
toing a bill that would have made criminals out of teach-
ers who refused to lead their classes in the pledge of alle-
giance. He also insinuated that Dukakis did not care about
crime by repeatedly mentioning a criminal who raped a
woman while on furlough. Voters chose Bush.
Bill Clinton told the voters in 1992 that he “felt their pain”
and that the problem with the United States was “…the
economy, stupid.” He suggested incumbent Bush was
not prepared to handle the task of fighting the rising un-
employment. All Bush could say in reply was that Clinton
had acted improperly twenty years earlier when he dem-
onstrated against United States involvement in Vietnam.
Clinton won decisively.
Four years later, in 1996, Clinton portrayed himself as

the candidate most concerned about Social Security and
Medicare. He linked opponent Republican Bob Dole to
the unpopular Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and
blamed them both for the government shutdown a year
earlier. Voters again sided with Clinton.
These winning candidates each assured the voters that

they were less dangerous than the other candidates on the
ballot. Nixon portrayed McGovern as an extremist. Carter
implied that Ford was dishonest by calling himself hon-
est. Reagan called for continued economic times of low
inflation and low unemployment, asking voters if they
were better off than they were four years before. Bush
100
08Chap7 80-101_22 100 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

called himself tough on crime, as if to warn voters that a

rapist would be in their neighborhood if Dukakis were
elected. Clinton labeled Bush as bad for the economy
and Dole as bad for the elderly.
The problem is not that candidates make these statements.

Given that defamation laws have not been held to apply
to those running for office, we cannot stop candidates from
saying whatever they wish to say. The problem is that
voters listen to it and believe such comments without
thinking of what type of leader made them.
101
08Chap7 80-101_22 101 6/9/05, 6:08 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
102
09Chap8 102-117_16 102 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

8 Third Parties and Candidates
Third Parties
and
Candidates
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“The two-party system has given this country the war of Lyndon Johnson, the
Watergate of Nixon, and the incompetence of Carter. Saying we should keep
the two-party system because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyagewas
a success because a few people survived on life rafts.” – Eugene McCarthy
H
istorically, third parties have rarely been taken
seriously. An overwhelming number of voters
vote for one of the two main party candidates
because they know that one of them will most
likely win. For one hundred forty years, no third
party has claimed the biggest prize: the presidential election.
Few third parties have had a chance to resolve this di-

lemma. Individuals controlled the three most successful
third parties in presidential elections in the twentieth cen-
tury — Theodore Roosevelt’s “Bull Moose” Party in 1912,
Robert La Follette’s Progressive Party in 1924, and George
Wallace’s American Independent Party in 1968. In each
case, the party lost substantial support not long after the
election as the leader failed to keep it together.
In the nineteenth century, several parties had success unit-

ing behind ideas rather than people. The Populist Party
pressed the Democrats and the Republicans for an income
tax and direct election of United States Senators. Though
the Populists did not win any significant elections, they
103
09Chap8 102-117_16 103 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
united behind these causes and succeeded in getting them

written into the Constitution by Amendments Sixteen and
Seventeen, respectively.
The Free Soil Party adamantly opposed slavery at a time

when both major parties, the Democrats and the Whigs,
supported it. Like the Populists, they did not win any
major elections, but one of their candidates, Martin Van
Buren, received a respectable ten percent of the vote in
1848 despite the fact the party had formed just a few
months prior to the election.
The Free Soil Party success paved the way for the most
successful third party in United States history. In the early
1850s, a group of mostly disaffected Whigs met to form
the Republican Party. After some early successes at the
local level with their opposition to slavery, they elected
their first President in 1860, Abraham Lincoln.
The Republicans succeeded because they presented ideas

distinct from the Whigs and the Democrats. They capital-
ized on the growing anti-slavery sentiment across the North-
ern and Western regions of the nation and chose a leader
bold enough to stand up to the South. Their conviction against
slavery and for the preservation of the Union did not appear
extreme at all. This strong conviction helped them keep the
White House long after the Civil War ended.
A strong, viable third party could assist an independent

candidate with its support. The party could, through its
members, provide financial contributions and people to
104
09Chap8 102-117_16 104 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

Third Parties and Candidates
handle the mechanics of campaigning such as phone banks

and door-to-door solicitation. Backing of a party would
also help such a candidate’s credibility in that a group of
voters selected the candidate to run in November rather
than the candidate choosing him or herself.
Third Parties Now

Currently, there are numerous third political parties in exist-
ence in the United States. They range from the Communist
Party on the far left and the American Nazi Party on the far
right. Some focus upon one issue such as the prohibition of
alcohol (named, appropriately, the Prohibition Party).
Most of these parties are in only a handful of states.

Typically, such parties are perceived as being on the
fringe of society or as appealing to a small group of
voters. Thus, they cannot convince the thousands of
voters to re-register with their respective party, as most
states require for ballot status.
A few parties have made it on the ballot in many or all

of the nation’s fifty states. The Libertarian Party has
qualified on all ballots. Yet the experience of the Lib-
ertarians demonstrates the difficulties of a third party
in influencing elections.
The Libertarians believe in limited government. They

oppose the income tax and any infringement upon per-
sonal liberties. For example, they oppose gun control in
any form. They also support the legalization of drugs
and prostitution.
105
09Chap8 102-117_16 105 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
In the Libertarian “Statement of Principles”, they make it

appear as if beliefs on each issue must be on an “all-or-
nothing” basis. Note the use of words such as “oppose
all” and “any” in this document:
We…deny the right of any government to

do these things, and hold that where govern-
ments exist, they must not violate the rights
of any individual: namely, (1) the right to
life — accordingly we support the prohibi-
tion of the initiation of physical force against
others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and
action — accordingly we oppose all attempts
by government to abridge the freedom of
speech and press, as well as government cen-
sorship in any form; and (3) the right to prop-
erty — accordingly we oppose all govern-
ment interference with private property, such
as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent
domain, and support the prohibition of rob-
bery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
Their supporters tend to be devoted followers of these

principles. Their stances on issues follow a consistent
pattern, which clearly distinguishes them from the Re-
publicans and Democrats, each of whom favors an active
government role in some areas of society.
The Libertarian Party fields a presidential candidate ev-

ery election. They call themselves “America’s Third Larg-
est Political Party.” Yet their candidates rarely poll more
106
09Chap8 102-117_16 106 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

than 1 percent of the vote. Why?
Consider the Libertarian Home page as it pertains to the

War on Drugs:
An increasing number of thoughtful Ameri-

cans from all walks of life — physicians,
business people, writers, even law enforce-
ment officials and judges — are coming to
the conclusion that the Libertarian Party’s
position on this issue is the correct one. It’s
time to repeal the laws which make drug use
a crime, and dismantle the corrupt machin-
ery of this “war.”
Voters perceive the Libertarians as too far away from their

ideas. Many voters, for example, acknowledge the “War on
Drugs” has not been cost-effective in reducing the use of
illegal drugs in the United States. But legalization is a posi-
tion that the nation can only reach after much debate, re-
structure of the law enforcement system (like re-training
police officers), and most likely, decriminalization of drugs.
If we “repeal the laws which make drug use a crime,” we try
a strategy never tried before and never proven. Ideas like
drug legalization, and the way the Libertarian Party words
its policies, strike many voters as too extreme.
The Libertarian Party will never move past attracting a

meager portion of the electorate unless it compromises
some of its positions so that they are closer to what a
majority of voters want. Instead of supporting drug le-
107
09Chap8 102-117_16 107 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
galization, they could support decriminalization, which would

keep laws against drugs on the books, but make the acts they
criminalize punishable by no more than a ticket.
If they chose this strategy, then they, of course, would no

longer be the Libertarians as we understand them. It would
seem that the Libertarians simply lack the support to be-
come a party capable of winning elections. They would
serve their own cause best if they adopted the strategy of
the Populist Party and forced the Republicans and Demo-
crats to enact legislation favorable to their issues. Ironi-
cally, the Populists gave us the income tax. Perhaps the
Libertarians have the strength to repeal it.
Another third party with widespread support is the Reform

Party. They face a different set of problems than the Liber-
tarians. They have won one of the governor’s jobs but now
face the prospect of losing a section of their own party.
The Reform Party sprouted after the first Ross Perot cam-
paign of 1992. They organized to nominate a candidate in
1996. Despite an effort by former Colorado Governor Rich-
ard Lamm, Ross Perot claimed the nomination for himself.
The Reform Party has never been able to overcome the per-
ception that Ross Perot owns it. Members of the party have
such campaign diverse views on issues like trade, abortion,
and campaign finance reform that the rest of the public can-
not understand what the party stands for or why it exists.
Despite Perot’s eight percent showing in the 1996 elec-
108
09Chap8 102-117_16 108 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

tion, the Reform Party has still not elected anyone to Con-
gress. And when they finally did elect a governor (with-
out the help of Perot), Jesse Ventura of Minnesota, the
party began to split between his forces and Perot’s forces.
In this disarray, Pat Buchanan entered the contest for the

nomination of the party for president in 2000. Buchanan
has loudly opposed such free trade measures as NAFTA,
winning the praise of Ross Perot. But Buchanan has just as
vocally opposed abortion rights under any circumstances,
placing him at odds with Perot and many other Reform Party
members. In another strange turn, Buchanan aligned with
Lenora Fulani, a leader of a wing of the Reform Party that
supports gay rights. Buchanan is perhaps best remembered
for declaring a cultural war at the 1992 Republican Conven-
tion against, among others, gays and lesbians.
Now members of the Reform Party, and the voting public

at large, have no clear understanding of what the party
stands for. The party has become splintered into differ-
ent groups. This factor alone does not spell trouble for
the Reform Party. After all, the Republicans and Demo-
crats for years have had different wings led by members
with different viewpoints. But the looming disaster for
this party revolves around its lack of a unifying feature.
Now it appears that the only thing that makes the Reform
Party different than the rest of the parties is the presence
of Ross Perot and his money.
Third parties thus face a dilemma to gain support. They

must distinguish themselves from other parties while not
109
09Chap8 102-117_16 109 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
appearing to be too extreme. They must stand for some-

thing without offending too many voters.
Who will the next successful third party be? They will be
a party able to grasp the best viable strategy at this time.
This party must look at the one important issue that nei-
ther the Republicans nor the Democrats will address. Iden-
tification of that issue will allow them to distinguish them-
selves without appearing to be extreme.
What is that issue?
Campaign finance reform. Both of the two major parties

have ignored this issue for many years. In fact, they both
benefit from the current system and have no reason to change
it. High contribution limits like $5,000 for PACs and $2,000
for individuals allow both parties’ candidates to take money
from the wealthiest members of society whom they can re-
turn favors to given their positions in Congress. The ab-
sence of laws on “soft money,” contributions to political
parties, allows the two parties to take even more money from
the same people without limits. And the premise of a “two
party system” gives voters the false impression that the only
way to make a difference voting is by voting for either the
Democrat or Republican. Not surprisingly, both parties have
kept Instant Runoff Voting, a reform that allows voters more
than one vote, off ballots in most states.
A political party sincere about making these reforms can

shake the Democratic-Republican hegemony that serves
itself first. Without these reforms, there is no point in
110
09Chap8 102-117_16 110 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

discussing other changes in our nation. The current cam-

paign finance system allows political candidates to buy
the support they need to get elected and then return sup-
port to those same people after taking office.
Once a third party adopts campaign finance reform as its

cause, it will start to pressure the two main parties to take
action. But to be taken seriously, the third party must win
elections at all levels of government. That way, the party
will be represented directly in the discussions at the state
legislatures and Congress. A cycle of power will form.
When supporters grow in number, the party has a better
chance of winning elections. Once the party starts win-
ning elections, its numbers will continue to grow.
Eventually, the party would need to adopt other issues. A

set of beliefs among the members would serve to form
the basis by which the party could take stances on issues.
Some of its stances may approximate those of the two
main parties. For voters to understand and identify with
the party, the party must support a set of ideas that differ
significantly from other parties.
If a third party could achieve these goals, it would then

be ready to compete for the presidency. Its candidate
would need to follow similar principles to establish him
or herself as would the party.
Third Party Candidate Chances to Win

Democratic and Republican Parties can each count on
forty percent of the voters in a presidential election. This
111
09Chap8 102-117_16 111 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
fact immediately puts a third party candidate at a disad-

vantage to win the election. The third party candidate
must take voters from at least one of the two main par-
ties, preferably both. The only way a candidate can
achieve this goal is through convincing many of these
voters to break a habit.
Clear Alternative
George Wallace once commented that the candidates for

the Democratic and Republican Party for President in 1968
were “Tweedledee” and “Tweedledum.” Although Demo-
crat Hubert Humphrey and Republican Richard Nixon
certainly differed on some issues and in their styles,
Wallace had a point. Both of the main party candidates
wanted to end the war in Vietnam, supported the use of
the federal government for many goals, supported (albeit,
to a different extent) civil rights programs and so on. Thus,
Wallace had many opportunities to present himself as dif-
ferent than Humphrey and Nixon.
A successful third party candidate must offer a clear al-

ternative to the other parties. Perot struck a chord among
voters by reminding them that he had nothing to do with
the bickering between Congress and the President nor the
record deficits. His standing as an outsider set him apart
from Bill Clinton (who, while not a member of Congress,
belonged to the same party as many of them) and Presi-
dent George Bush. Perot also effectively used 30-minute
“infomercials” for the first time in presidential politics.
112
09Chap8 102-117_16 112 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

Speaking Candidly
Republican and Democratic candidates often concern

themselves with the wishes of the members of their party.
For example, any Republican candidate for president must
consider that many Republicans are adamantly pro-life.
Since Ronald Reagan’s nomination in 1980, the party plat-
form has called for the end of abortion. Pro-choice Re-
publicans must watch what they say lest they scare off a
good portion of the party.
Democratic candidates have similar problems with union

issues. Traditionally, unions have provided money and
volunteer support for Democratic candidates. When
NAFTA passed at President Clinton’s urging, more Re-
publicans in Congress voted for it than did Democrats.
So, Democrats not favorable to union causes must be care-
ful in what they say, just like the pro-choice Republicans.
A third-party candidate can come across as distinct from

his or her main party rivals by speaking their own mind.
Speaking frankly can be a big risk for major party candi-
dates, but a third party candidate has little to lose by be-
ing candid. Supporters of John Anderson in 1980 cited
his willingness to say what voters did not want to hear as
one of their reasons for backing him.
Not perceived as extremist
An extremist may gain votes, even electoral votes, but

history shows that most voters reject them. For example,
113
09Chap8 102-117_16 113 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
George Wallace won several states in the South in 1968

as the American Independent candidate for president, but
failed to make any impact anywhere else. Many voters
called him a racist and an extremist because of his sup-
port of racial segregation and his disdain for federal power.
Extremism by its own definition rules out a majority of

people. Thus, the perception of extremism completely
rules out anyone connected with the Nazi Party, for ex-
ample. It also tarnishes the “Taxpayer’s Party” since it
splintered from the American Independent Party.
Credibility with Voters
Voters must be able to picture the third party candidate as

the president. This factor presents one of the biggest chal-
lenges for such a candidate since third parties hold very
few elected offices anywhere in the United States. Thus,
they would have trouble building their own credibility as
a member of their party.
Anderson built his credibility around twenty years of ser-

vice as a Republican United States Representative to Con-
gress from Illinois. His decision to leave the Republican
Party after several disagreements with other candidates
in his party enhanced his credibility since he left the party
out of principle.
Actively campaigning
Campaigning every day, giving press conferences and
114
09Chap8 102-117_16 114 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

advertising are three ways that candidates establish their

earnestness to the voters. A third party candidate want-
ing to be taken seriously would be wise to have a pres-
ence in every state and to make campaign visits as fre-
quently as the Democrats and Republicans.
Anderson aggressively campaigned to maintain the at-

tention of the voters. By doing so, he gave the media
something to mention about him in their coverage of the
campaign. Without coverage of his campaigning, he
would have failed to distinguish himself from other third-
party candidates.
A Third Party Victory: the Mathematics
Two candidates in recent history have managed to con-

vince some of those main party voters to support their
third party candidacies. John Anderson in 1980 and Ross
Perot in 1992 each received higher than 25% of the vot-
ers’ support in polls taken in the spring of those election
years. Each man technically ran as an independent, but
only after amassing a substantial following.
With three or more candidates, the mathematics of an elec-

tion changes dynamically. Instead of focusing upon a
majority of 50.1 percent of higher, each candidate may
receive a substantially lower portion of the overall vote
and still win.
115
09Chap8 102-117_16 115 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Two Party System
Reagan
Carter
Three Party System
Anderson Carter
Reagan
Note the graph above. It illustrates how the goal of a

candidate in a three-way race as compared to a two-way
races changes. This perception of what it takes for a can-
didate to win affects the perception of which candidates
people (namely, the media) take seriously. The 25% of
the vote Anderson and Perot each received in the polls
would have been unremarkable in a two-party race.
116
09Chap8 102-117_16 116 6/9/05, 10:15 AM

117
09Chap8 102-117_16 117 6/9/05, 6:09 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
“When the going gets tough, the altruists

sacrifice themselves, the egocentrics take
the easy way out, and the voters pay
no attention.”
118
10Chap9 118-129_12 118 6/9/05, 6:12 AM

9How the Egocentric Candidates Have Dominated the Altruists
How the Egocentics

Have Dominated
the Altruists
★★★★★★★★★ ★★★★★★★★★★★
“One has to be a lowbrow, a bit of a murderer, to be a politician,
ready and willing to see people sacrificed, slaughtered, for the
sake of an idea, whether a good one or a bad one.” – Henry Miller
C
ontrol the Media, Control the Electorate
Each of the candidates who won election used

the media to his advantage. While Reagan
served as President, his media advisors told the
television news stations that they did not care
what they said about Reagan since surveys showed that
when viewers watched a screen image of Reagan smil-
ing, they did not listen to newscaster comments.
Bush’s media team kept him away from members of the

media when he ran for President. This technique allowed
Bush to be selective as to when he would speak on the
record and prevented him from engaging in any embar-
rassing gaffes during the campaign.
In contrast, his opponent, Michael Dukakis, frequently

allowed reporters covering his campaign to speak with
him on election matters. Members of the Bush campaign
had a field day when they learned Dukakis had responded
to a reporter about Willie Horton. The reporter had told
Dukakis that Horton said he would vote for him, prompt-
ing Dukakis to reply, “He can’t vote.”
119
10Chap9 118-129_12 119 6/9/05, 6:12 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Had Dukakis kept away from the media like Bush, he

never would have had to answer that question. Bush’s
handlers saw questions like that as “no-win” questions,
in which any response would create negative publicity.
They had a point (a Dukakis response that he welcomed
Horton’s support would have been ridiculed, for example).
So, too, would have been any condemnation of Horton,
as critics would have called it too late.
So, Dukakis, despite his willingness to answer difficult

questions, lost favor with the public. So, too, did Presi-
dent Carter. Sam Donaldson remarked recently that he
had no problem walking up to President Carter and ask-
ing him questions. The result of Carter’s accessibility
was that the public learned more of Carter’s unhappiness
with the economy and foreign affairs, which may have
helped bring about the “malaise” with which his presi-
dency became associated.
Clinton and his top advisor, James Carville organized a

“Rapid Response Team” to respond to attacks made by op-
posing candidates against him within 24 hours. As Presi-
dent, Clinton kept in mind that a typical news cycle lasts one
day at the most and kept a “response team” at the White
House. Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledged
Clinton’s gift for the relatively new art of media “spin.”
The public, most of which is unable to meet with candidates

directly, must rely upon the media to receive information
about them. Why is it, then, that the public perceived Carter
and Dukakis more negatively than Reagan and Clinton?
The answer is with us, the public. We reward leaders

who deliver good news and do not care how hard a time
120
10Chap9 118-129_12 120 6/9/05, 6:12 AM

How the Egocentric Candidates Have Dominated the Altruists
the media had in reaching them. We vote against politi-

cians willing to tell us bad news.
President Reagan’s invasion of Grenada is a case in point.

A group of communists engineered a coup’d’tat in the
tiny Caribbean Island. Reagan, out of concern for the
United States citizens (mostly medical students) who lived
there, sent troops to secure their safety.
This invasion took place two days after a terrorist attack

killed 242 United States Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.
Critics had just started questioning in the media why
Reagan left the Marines in Beirut long after they likely
would have any effectiveness when Reagan decided to
take action in Grenada. The good news in Grenada took
the media headlines away from the bad news of Beirut.
When asked about Beirut, Reagan simply said, “I take

full responsibility for what happened.” He made this state-
ment just before leaving for California for a long vaca-
tion. By the time his plane landed, polls were beginning
to show overwhelming public support for the Reagan
Administration’s actions in Grenada.
Altruist response: If we truly want leaders brave

enough to answer the tough questions, we must find
the bravery to vote for them.
Distortion of Abortion
Reagan and Bush held unpopular views on the issue of abor-
tion. Polls routinely show that most people in the United States
want to keep it legal. Reagan and Bush, on the other hand,
opposed abortion rights. Their strategy for addressing this is-
sue worked the same way as their strategy on other issues:
121
10Chap9 118-129_12 121 6/9/05, 6:12 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
• Vagueness – When asked in a debate whether he

would support criminal punishment for doctors who
perform abortions, Bush said, “I haven’t sorted out
the penalties yet.” His campaign staff quickly made
a statement that Bush did not support charging doc-
tors criminally, but Bush kept quiet.
• No sacrifices – Bush said nothing about women

who would have to carry a baby they did not want
under his policies. Like Reagan, he focused on the
“rights of the unborn” and said nothing about aid to
women in carrying and then raising children.
• Demonizing the opponent – Reagan complained

in a debate with John Anderson that “people who sup-
port abortion have all been born.” He framed the is-
sue around the fetus, as if to say that anyone who sup-
ported abortion did not care about the unborn baby.
He rarely spoke about women who are raped, are vic-
tims of incest or whose lives are in danger by the fe-
tus, nor did he say much about helping women take
care of babies after they are born.
On the other side of the debate, Clinton favored a woman’s right

to choose an abortion. Most Democrats, including leading op-
ponent Jerry Brown, agreed with him. However, a few Demo-
crats, like Governor Robert Casey, opposed abortion rights.
Casey wanted to discuss his opinion before the Demo-

cratic Convention in New York City in 1992. Clinton
and his supporters prevented Casey from delivering his
speech. Clinton advisor George Stephanopholus dis-
missed those who found Clinton intolerant by saying that
the pro-choice position “is the position of tolerance.”
122
10Chap9 118-129_12 122 6/9/05, 6:12 AM

By implication, the Clinton supporters called those who

are pro-life on abortion intolerant, a way of demonizing
the opponent. They failed to recognize one of the great-
est tools in discussing issues, freedom of speech. They
also failed to acknowledge that the tool’s use requires
sacrifice of time from all of us.
Altruist response: A true leader listens to the voice of

dissent rather than quiets it.
Gun Control
As soon as a politician uses the phrase “gun control,” groups
like the National Rifle Association immediately scream about
the Second Amendment and the “right to bear arms.”
What is a right? According to former Attorney General

Ramsey Clark, it is “something that cannot be taken away
from us.” In other words, we must do something wrong
before the right is taken.
Gun control advocates want the right of a person to own a

weapon to be taken from those who have demonstrated
by their conduct that their possession of a weapon would
likely cause danger to society. Most gun control advo-
cates point to two such groups of people: criminals and
the mentally ill.
For example, when a judge or jury convicts a person of a

crime, the defendant’s status changes to that of a crimi-
nal. He or she faces punishment proportional to the con-
duct for which they were convicted.
The criminal may go to prison or pay a fine. Even after

they have served their punishment, depending upon the
123
10Chap9 118-129_12 123 6/9/05, 6:12 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
seriousness of the crime, they still face punishment in the

form of having fewer rights than a non-convict. For ex-
ample, in many states, a person convicted of a serious
crime does not have the right to vote, even if they have
served their time.
Most states distinguish between serious crimes (those that

cause serious injury or death to another person or which
damage another person’s property) and crimes of con-
cern to society but which are not serious. The former
crimes are known as “felonies” and carry the stiffest pun-
ishments. The latter are called “misdemeanors” and usu-
ally do not result in jail time.
Thus, society has already determined that certain types of

criminal conduct should result in the deprivation of some
rights. Gun control advocates uphold this tenet of law by
proposing that felons be denied legal ownership of weapons.
Supporters of gun control often identify the mentally ill

as a group of people who should not own weapons. This
exclusion is founded upon sound legal authority: we deny
some mentally ill people the rights to make contracts, serve
in the military, and in some extreme cases, we may force
them to live in an institution.
It is one thing to make rules about who may not own a

weapon, but quite another to enforce these rules. Those
who believe in gun control typically advocate background
checks upon those wishing to purchase a weapon and a
waiting period for the weapon seller to conduct that check.
A gun seller obviously has no idea whether the person he/

she deals with falls into one of the two categories of accept-
124
10Chap9 118-129_12 124 6/9/05, 6:12 AM

able exclusion. They must conduct a background check of

convictions (public information) or of hospitalization for ill-
ness (public information if the person has been found not
guilty by reason of insanity or similar adjudication).
Whether a gun seller can check records of hospitalization

for other reasons is an issue of privacy since such records
are confidential. Depriving those who were ordered by
law to go to an institution is good public policy because it
punishes only the mentally ill whose conduct has risen to
the level of criminal.
Sellers conduct these background checks, usually because

of state or federal law, upon all would-be gun buyers. Of
course, law-abiding citizens feel inconvenienced. But
their rights are not being taken away. Their rights are
balanced against the right of society to “domestic tran-
quility,” one of the responsibilities given to the govern-
ment by the Constitution. The government orders these
checks to best ensure that tranquility.
These background checks and waiting periods are no

more an infringement upon the Second Amendment
than metal detectors at airports are an infringement
upon the Fourth Amendment which prohibits unrea-
sonable searches and seizures. Yet, I have yet to hear
of a “right to avoid detectors” group.
Both Ronald Reagan and George Bush said they did not sup-
port gun control. How did they win with this point of view?
• Vagueness - Reagan and Bush spoke of the Second

Amendment and the “right to bear arms.” Whose right
were they talking about? The rights of criminals to
125
10Chap9 118-129_12 125 6/9/05, 6:12 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
get guns? They simply never said.
• No sacrifices – “We’re not going to take guns away

from you.” They made it sound like a vote for them
was a vote to keep guns legal. By failing to endorse
waiting periods on guns (something that might have
prevented Reagan assailant John Hinckley from buy-
ing a gun to shoot him), Reagan and Bush never asked
the public to do anything.
• Demonize the opponent – “That other candidate will

take your gun from you.” Bush especially used this
tactic effectively against Dukakis. Never mind it was
not true (lucky for Bush, truth in advertising laws do
not apply to political candidates).
Amazingly, this issue is one that all parties can find com-
mon ground. No one wants criminals or people with severe
mental illness to possess guns. The real question is how to
make sure these groups of people do not obtain one. If can-
didates like Reagan and Bush took the time to understand
the argument of candidates like Dukakis, perhaps they could
work together to achieve the common goal.
Altruist response: Real leaders discuss their goals and

their ideas for achieving them. They do not mask the
issue behind emotional sentiment.
Tough on Crime – or the Constitution?

Reagan, Bush and Clinton talked about being “tough” on
crime. When pressed for details, they discussed their sup-
port for the death penalty.
This issue evokes many emotions. As a result, facts some-
126
10Chap9 118-129_12 126 6/9/05, 6:12 AM

times get left out. Though the federal government has the
death penalty on its books, it is the states and their respective
governors, legislatures and courts, who have handled capital
punishment for the most part.
For another, the punishment is final. Recently, the State

of Illinois uncovered several cases of people who received
a death sentence but who turned out to be innocent. A
number of books have been written about these cases.
One of them, Victims of Justice by Thomas Frisbie and
Randy Garrett, documented how the outrage of a com-
munity over a horrible crime encouraged prosecutors to
forget ethics in pursuing their convictions.
All three distorted this issue to rally support for their can-
didacies. “Toughness” on crime appeals to voters’ emo-
tions, very much like the Pledge of Allegiance. Candi-
dates who bother to explain that the death penalty does
not deter crime, that innocent people are often convicted
due to “tough on crime” reform, or who even dare to say
that victims of crime do not have the right to speak to
juries are often ridiculed as “soft on crime.”
Indeed, Anderson, Dukakis and Brown all opposed capi-

tal punishment. Bush used this issue against Dukakis,
saying in his acceptance speech that, “some people be-
lieve we should not execute those who commit the most
horrible crime - I do…”
Once again, the Egocentric candidates used strategies to

persuade the public to vote for them.
• Vagueness – None of the three could ever explain how

support for the death penalty meant toughness. Tough-
127
10Chap9 118-129_12 127 6/9/05, 6:12 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
ness on crime should mean a reduction in crime. Yet,

they provided no evidence that the death penalty de-
terred crime.
• No sacrifice - They discussed the need to curtail appeals

by criminals, especially those convicted of capital crimes.
This idea sounds like only criminals sacrifice something.
In reality, limiting appeals presents a conflict with the
Constitutional concept of due process (a right that all
have) and increases the chance that an innocent person
will be punished and possibly executed.
• Demonizing the opponent – By framing the issue of

the death penalty around “toughness” on crime, each
of the three implied that death penalty opponents like
Anderson, Dukakis and Brown did not care about
crime or, worse, sided with criminals. They thus
linked their opponents with the worst people in our
society, a demonization by association.
Like the issue of gun control, supporters and opponents

of the death penalty want less crime. The question is
how to best achieve that result. If supporters of the
death penalty could substantiate their belief that ex-
ecutions deter crime, they would have to balance that
argument against the possibility that increasing execu-
tions increases the chance that innocent people will die.
The egocentric tactics of Reagan, Bush and Clinton
have prevented a sincere discussion about these sub-
issues of capital punishment.
Altruist response: Leaders put the interest of the pub-

lic ahead of their own greed for votes.
128
10Chap9 118-129_12 128 6/9/05, 6:12 AM

129
10Chap9 118-129_12 129 6/9/05, 6:12 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
130
11Chap10 130-143_14 130 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

10Campaign Finance Reform
Campaign
Finance
Reform
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay
bought” - Simon Cameron
U
nder the current campaign finance system, and
subsequent laws devised by Congress shortly
after the Watergate scandal, individuals may
contribute up to $2,000 to a federal candidate.
Political action committees may contribute up
to $5,000. Corporations and unions may not contribute
to a candidate.
Since the inception of this system, some candidates have

prospered and others have faltered in terms of financing
campaigns. Some contributors have found the system to
their liking, while others have not. For the most part,
most individuals have not participated at all. According
to the Benton Foundation, eighty percent of the public
has never contributed to a political campaign.
Who benefits from this system? Clearly political action

committees (also known as “PACs”). What are they?
They are groups of individuals united behind a particular
cause. Those opposed to abortion rights, for example.
Or people who support gun control. PACs are also people
at corporations who pool money to collectively contrib-
131
11Chap10 130-143_14 131 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
ute to candidates and causes.

What kind of people do PACs not represent? According
to the Center for Responsive Politics, “…of the 1,197
PACs that gave $20,000 or more to members of Congress
during the 1991-1992 election cycle, none represented
poor people, parents of public school children, people who
are victims of toxic dumping” or any one of a number of
underprivileged groups in our society.
I worked for a political consulting firm one summer in

Washington, DC. My job was to call contributors about
upcoming elections for the firm’s clients. I remember
calling numerous PACs to solicit contributions but never
any individuals. Small wonder—with the limit of $1,000
then on individuals and $5,000 on PACs, my firm’s cli-
ents had no choice but to go where the money was.
When a PAC gives a $5,000 to a presidential candidate,

he likely feels obliged to consider that PAC’s interests. If
a candidate received such a contribution from a PAC of
automobile manufacturers, for example, how could he turn
around and support policies contrary to this group? If he
did support raising fuel efficiency standards, anathema to
the automobile manufacturers since it costs more to fol-
low these standards, their PACs would look elsewhere for
a candidate to support.
At the job, I became aware of the influence of PACs. Our

firm competed with several other firms for money and
clients. I saw the struggle to get PAC money compro-
mise the values of those with whom I worked. My boss
132
11Chap10 130-143_14 132 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

Campaign Finance Reform
told me she supported a woman’s right to choose an abor-

tion. Yet, when the firm’s resources dipped perilously
low, she joined forces with a pro-life consultant touted as
an expert in “fundraising.” Together, they sought out pro-
choice and pro-life candidates.
I concluded that money convinced my boss to support

politicians she would not have supported otherwise. The
candidates have at least as strong a need for money as my
firm did. What is to stop them from compromising val-
ues in order to bring more money to their campaigns?
And, the larger the contribution, the larger the degree of in-
fluence. A single $100 will not stand out in the middle of the
millions of dollars necessary for a candidate to fund a suc-
cessful campaign of advertising and staff members and other
campaign expenditures. A $5,000 contribution just might.
Limits on contributions do not affect those who finance

their own campaigns. Thus, Ross Perot and Steve Forbes
have spent millions of dollars on their own candidacies
that they could not spend on another campaign.
The Supreme Court in Buckley v Valeo upheld these con-

tribution limits. Contribution limits must stem corrup-
tion or the appearance of corruption but may not be so
low that candidates are unable to raise enough money to
engage in “effective advocacy.”
However, it struck down as unconstitutional mandatory

spending limits some jurisdictions had placed upon fed-
133
11Chap10 130-143_14 133 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
eral candidates. In other words, no law may impose any

limit upon the amount of money a candidate for federal
office may spend.
However, the Court did not strike down voluntary spend-

ing limits. Laws may reward candidates who voluntarily
follow spending limits with incentives such as free media
time and public money. Currently, the Federal Elections
Commission matches all contributions to presidential can-
didates of $250 or less. The funds come directly from the
voluntary $3 “check-off” a person may agree to on their
income tax forms.
Current rules make it easy for a Republican or Democrat

to qualify for these funds, called matching funds, for the
general election. They need only win the nomination of
their party, agree to the limits and agree not to spend more
than $50,000 of their own wealth on the campaign.
On the other hand, independent and third-party nominees

face what is usually an impossible challenge since their
party must have received over 5% of the vote in the previ-
ous presidential election. Since few third parties reach
that level, the matching funds go to the two major parties.
Spending limits currently in place factor the population

of the state. But they are riddled with loopholes that al-
low candidates to spend heavily on voters in one state by
using such tactics as mailing campaign brochures early
(the limits do not cover mailings more than twenty-eight
days before a presidential primary) and legally discount-
134
11Chap10 130-143_14 134 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

ing certain types of expenditures.

The current contribution system discourages a presiden-
tial candidate from saying what might offend rich con-
tributors. It may explain why Ronald Reagan refused to
propose any policies on conservation during an energy
crisis. The system punishes candidates who call for sac-
rifice. Since PACs are run by the people most able to
make sacrifices, any sacrifices suggested will likely tar-
get PAC interests. When John Anderson called for a tax
on gasoline, he ensured that very few PAC contributions
from oil interests would go to him.
How can we create a campaign finance system that gives

our altruistic candidates a fair chance at winning? We
must build a new system that addresses each of the prob-
lems caused by the current one.
• The average wage earner must have just as much an

influence as the rich. Otherwise, corporate interests
will continue to dominate presidential elections via
the PACs and the problems average people face will
not be heard.
• Candidates for president must not be corrupted by a

single contribution. We trust our candidates to make
decisions in the best interests of our nation, not spe-
cial interests.
• The matching funds should be available to third party

candidates more readily. Then, the public will more
likely hear different, and perhaps better, ideas on how
135
11Chap10 130-143_14 135 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
to resolve problems.
• The public must be informed as to the contributions
and contributors to each candidate. Candidates will
more likely answer to an informed public as to whether
their policies are influenced by contributors than to
an uninformed one.
• Only those who vote should be allowed to contribute.

The true meaning of democracy is when citizens vote,
not when they give money.
• Spending limits must continue to be voluntarily fol-

lowed and devoid of loopholes. The current system
is self-defeating because candidates can get around
the rules so easily.
When the average wage earner can make a difference,

the politicians won’t be corrupted
In 1996, the median household income was $35,172. A
family with this income could not reasonably be expected
to shell out the maximum $5,000 that a PAC could for a
presidential campaign. This sum represents 14% of the
amount of money they make in a year income before taxes.
The way to encourage involvement on the part of the av-

erage family would be through reduction of the maximum
contribution limit. As mentioned earlier, contribution lim-
its face a two-prong test: they must both stem corruption
or the appearance of corruption and must allow candi-
dates enough money to wage an effective campaign.
136
11Chap10 130-143_14 136 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

As for corruption, what reasonable person could doubt

that presidential candidates may be corrupted by large
contributions? Just as every employee has concern that
his or her actions might cause disfavor with the one who
pays their salary (the employer), politicians cannot sur-
vive by displeasing those who pay them the money they
need to do their job of campaigning (the contributors).
Lowering the maximum contribution to a figure that a

family earning the median income can afford would give
more people a chance to contribute to campaigns. By
increasing the opportunities for donors, we will likely
increase the number of donors. A large number of donors
giving roughly the same amounts would prevent a single
donor from influencing or corrupting a politician.
As for waging an effective campaign, candidates will

spend more time approaching the individuals of this na-
tion and listening to their interests and concerns and less
time listening to the interests and concerns of corpora-
tions. It is true that corporations have legitimate issues
and have the right to raise them. But now they would
have to raise them through their people and not necessar-
ily their CEOs. This new shift in how candidates will
spend their time will make their campaigns more respon-
sive to ordinary people.
It may very well be that by pursuing contributions of a

smaller amount that a given candidate will not raise as
much money as they had previously. With mandatory
contribution limits in place, all candidates will face this
137
11Chap10 130-143_14 137 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
problem. The solution may very well be to limit the length

of presidential campaigns, which may well benefit a pub-
lic weary of their length, anyway. In any event, the can-
didates will have a more equal opportunity to present their
messages to the public.
The most reasonable limit would be $100 per individual.

At that level, not only could the median wage earner af-
ford a contribution, but even a person making the mini-
mum wage of $5.15 per hour could contribute as well. If
they worked forty hours a week, this sum of $100 would
represent 10% of their yearly earnings, a high amount but
still attainable. While earning less than $200 per week
some years ago, I contributed $50 to a political campaign.
Jerry Brown ran his entire 1992 campaign for president,

which began in October 1991 and lasted all the way until
the Democratic Convention in July 1992, by taking con-
tributions of $100 or less. He may have taken in more
money by lifting that ban, but he may have lost votes from
his advocacy of campaign reform had he done so. In any
event, his campaign serves as an example that a $100 con-
tribution limit can allow a candidate to wage an effective
campaign.
Matching Funds Should be Available to all Candidates

The law on matching funds would change if the contribu-
tions were restricted to $100. The FEC could take a new
approach to matching funds. It could match all contribu-
tions given to a presidential candidate up to a certain level.
Then it could offer these funds to candidates who abide
138
11Chap10 130-143_14 138 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

by reasonable spending limits.

The current requirement of a party receiving 5% of the
vote in the previous presidential election in order to re-
ceive matching funds for the general election should be
changed. Instead, any candidate who is on the ballot in
enough states to receive the required number of electoral
votes to win (currently 270) should be eligible for the
matching funds.
The funds should be split evenly among all eligible can-

didates who pledge to follow the spending limits. The
public funding must not be another tool for the Demo-
cratic and Republican parties to get more money and es-
tablish their dominance in campaigns.
This even division will encourage new political parties to

make every effort to get on the ballot in as many states as
possible. They can do this by persuading the voters of each
state of the worthiness of their causes and the strength of
their candidates. Then they would have the opportunity, with
the matching funds, to tell the electorate at election time.
Making it all Public Information

Records of contributors often show the true supporters of
a candidate. Current laws reflect the public’s need to know
a candidate’s sources of support by requiring that the
names of sponsors and some of the leading contributors
be displayed on most forms of advertising. Upon request,
people can obtain lists of contributors from the Federal
Election Commission.
139
11Chap10 130-143_14 139 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
We can take this idea one step farther by requiring that

candidates post, free of charge to the public, the names and
cities of residences of all contributors on a web site within 3
days of the person’s contribution being cashed. This will
give all voters a chance to judge the candidate by his or her
contributors, an effective way in helping voters determine
whether one should support that candidate. Use of the cities
of residences will distinguish two people with the same name
without compromising privacy by requiring information like
a phone number or address.
Candidates, for their part, will no longer be able to solicit

money secretly. Asking for money will be done out in
the open, as it should be done in a free society.
Only Voters Should Contribute

Under current law, a person who does not vote can influ-
ence an election through contributions. This act must be
outlawed to ensured that the only people who constitu-
tionally have the right to support a candidate, the voters,
will exclusively hold that right.
When a person votes, they typically receive a stub from

their ballot or other form of identification. It usually has
a number on it. Voters should be required to send their
identification number as proof that they voted in the most
recent election along with their contribution. This require-
ment should be waived for voters not old enough to vote
in the previous election.
Cut out the Loopholes in Spending Limits
140
11Chap10 130-143_14 140 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

What is the point of having spending limits if candidates

can so easily get around them? Limits must be clearly
written with penalties for those who disobey them.
For example, current law limits candidates to $660,000

in New Hampshire. But candidates may deduct half of
their expenditures in a state as exempt from the spending
limits. In fact, for all states in which they campaign, a
candidate may take up to $6.5 million of these deduc-
tions. Other loopholes include a 10% deduction for “over-
head costs” like campaign staff and telephones.
Then, too, the FEC recently issued an opinion that states

that candidates who send out mailings to voters more than
28 days before that state’s primaries do not have to count
the expenditures of such mailings against the limits. Can-
didates can promote themselves in the states with late
primaries, in effect, outside the limits.
With these technicalities, a candidate can spend more than

the limits of the law and get away with it. It is thus the law
that must be changed. All expenditures must be counted
against the spending limits. Deductions should be elimi-
nated, or if necessary, simply added to the maximum limits.
The government should declare a starting point of the presi-

dential campaign. They could, for example, declare that no
candidate for the presidency may “actively campaign” (by
promoting their candidacy openly or by hiring staff, for ex-
ample) until after a certain date, such as January 1st of the
election year. Such a date will allow better enforcement of
campaign tactics such as the early mailers.
141
11Chap10 130-143_14 141 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Effect of Campaign Finance Reforms:

Equality of Opportunity
All presidential candidates who agree to follow the spend-
ing limits will start out on a level playing field. Each candi-
date will have the same amount of time to pursue contribu-
tions. Each will have to pursue individuals and will have to
face the same contribution limits. Each will know the pub-
lic will watch the fundraising details on the Internet.
Because of the Buckley decision, candidates will not have to

follow spending limits. Those who wish to spend unlimited
sums of money, however, will have to work harder to raise
that money, given the new contribution caps. A candidate
can no longer receive $5,000 with one visit to a political
action committee. Instead, he or she will have to find 50
individuals each willing to contribute the maximum $100.
All candidates will find it necessary to ask countless indi-

viduals for financial help. These contributors will have the
same opportunity as any other contributor to persuade a can-
didate as to a particular point of view. Candidates, knowing
this, will have no reason to favor any individual over any
other and thus be less likely to be influenced by money.
Candidates could then present their ideas clearly. They

could ask for sacrifices that they thought necessary. They
could attack other candidates ideas more easily. In short,
the prognosis looks better for altruistic candidates with
these campaign finance reforms.
142
11Chap10 130-143_14 142 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

143
11Chap10 130-143_14 143 6/9/05, 6:13 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
“Move-in day at the White House”
144
12Chap11 144-149_6 144 6/9/05, 6:14 AM

11 Soft Money Corruption
Soft-Money
Corruption
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“A fool and his money are soon elected.” – Will Rogers
I
worked on the Clinton for President campaign in
1992. This experience as a “Campaign Organizer”
gave me insight as to how political parties use
money to help their candidates for president and
other offices.
At first, I volunteered my time at the local Democratic

headquarters in Long Beach, California. For a few hours
a day, I would make phone calls to local Democrats ask-
ing them to support the Democratic ticket. Eventually,
given the usual high turnover among staff members in
such a campaign, a paid position opened and I took it.
My employer was not the Clinton-Gore campaign. In-

stead, my pay came from the California Democratic Party.
The significance of the state party paying me, (or more
specifically, having the funds the pay me) did not occur
to me for many years.
Federal law forbids individuals from contributing more

than $20,000 to the national committee of a political party.
According to the Federal Elections Commission, one is
145
12Chap11 144-149_6 145 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
subject to an annual limit of $25,000 on contributions

made to federal candidates, party committees and politi-
cal action committees or PACs. (2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(3);
11 CFR 110.5). Corporations and labor unions are pro-
hibited from making contributions or expenditures to in-
fluence federal elections.
Yet, despite these restrictions, the California Demo-

cratic Party had no trouble paying me and countless
others to work on the campaigns. I now know that
individuals, corporations and unions can get around
these laws by contributing money to political parties
for purposes other than national elections. Simply put,
one can give an unlimited amount of money to a state
party to get around federal laws.
A union used such a scheme to “give” employees to

the campaign. They paid or guaranteed pay to several
people to work during their regular work time on the
Clinton campaign. Ordinarily, the law refers to this
act as an “in-kind” donation and would restrict it since
it came from a union. But, the contribution was not to
the national campaign (a federal election) but rather to
the state Democratic Party.
Then, too, I went to a local law firm in the evenings. There

I supervised several volunteers who called voters and I
made calls myself. We did not have to pay the law firm,
a corporation, to use their office and phones. They used
the same scheme the union had used by making their “in-
kind” contribution to the state party.
146
12Chap11 144-149_6 146 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

Soft Money Corruption
Presidential campaigns have for many years used this type

of money, known as “soft money” because no federal law
covers them. The political parties set up “non-federal
accounts” to get around the law forbidding corporations
and unions to influence federal elections and the law lim-
iting contributions from individuals. FEC records show
that Microsoft Corporation, for example, made several
high contributions to such groups as the “National Re-
publican Senatorial Committee” and the “Democratic
National Committee.”
Campaigns use this money for the very activities I wit-

nessed on the Clinton campaign. As long as the contribu-
tions are not “direct” (i.e. used by a candidate exclusively),
the campaigns act legally. And both major political par-
ties benefit because their candidates have many campaign
expenditures taken care of.
Congress passed laws in the early 1900s banning corporate

contributions to federal candidates and later passed laws in
the mid-1900s banning such union contributions. They rea-
soned that corporations and unions should not influence those
who pass laws about the regulation of their activities.
But this influence remains. The Democratic Party in Long

Beach and cities all over the nation benefit from union
and corporation contributions in that election and in other
elections. These influences naturally want something back
in return from the President they paid to help elect. Some
likely pushed for a raise in the minimum wage, others for
family medical leave, still others for fewer restrictions on
147
12Chap11 144-149_6 147 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
litigation, and so on.
Some may argue that the Democratic Party cannot return

these favors. They cannot directly. But the Democratic
Party, as the president’s main base of support, has no
trouble finding access to talk to the president.
Others may say that the parties would be hurt by a ban on

soft money contributions. That may be, but is having
two weaker parties necessarily bad for democracy? The
parties claim they use the money to educate voters and
encourage them to go to the polls. We need their influ-
ence less than they need us. When voters are willing to
take the time and educate themselves, they will see no
need for soft money or its corruptive influence over our
election system.
148
12Chap11 144-149_6 148 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

Soft Money Corruption
149
12Chap11 144-149_6 149 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
150
13Chap12 150-159_10 150 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

12 He Can’t Win, So Why Vote for Him?
He Can’t Win,
So Why Vote for
Him?
The Need for Instant Runoff Voting
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“We all would like to vote for the best man,
but he’s never on the ballot”—Kin Hubbard
M any voters look at a ballot, spot a candidate with

a label other than “Democratic” or “Republi-
can” and say to themselves, “This Candidate
may be good but they can’t win.” These voters
then move on and choose one of the major party
candidates. Many voters have gotten the impression that a
vote for a third party candidate would be wasted.
At the time of this writing, only one out of 535 members of

Congress is from a third party ( Bernie Sanders, Representa-
tive from Vermont). None of our nation’s fifty governors are
from a party other than the Democratic or Republican. It’s
no wonder that many voters overlook third parties or dis-
miss them as certain losers.
Such was Anderson’s fate. Despite high levels of discon-

tent of voters with President Carter and Ronald Reagan,
ninety-two percent of the voters chose one of them as
their candidate.
What if the voters could have made more than one vote?
The Center for Voting and Democracy, a group Anderson

151
13Chap12 150-159_10 151 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
in recent years has presided over, has provided an answer

to this question with its “Instant Runoff Voting” proposal.
In many nations, such as Russia and France, elections that

fail to produce a candidate with more than 50 percent of
the vote are held again with the two leading candidates
on the new ballot. This second ballot is often referred to
as a “runoff” election. The winner of the runoff wins the
election.
This system has its flaws: for one, voter turnout is often
much lower for the runoff than for the first election. Elec-
tion results should reflect a high number of voters. For
another, the jurisdiction in question must pay for two elec-
tions rather than one.
Enter Instant Runoff Voting.
In the Center’s plan, voters only go to the polls once. They

receive a ballot with all candidates for the position listed.
They mark their ballot by ranking their choices in order
of their preference. So, they mark a “1” next to their
favorite candidate, a “2” next to their second-favorite can-
didate, and so on. They may vote for as many choices as
they wish.
This plan works in all elections in which only one candi-

date may win, such as an election for governor or mem-
ber of Congress. It also applies to the presidential elec-
tion, since every state and the District of Columbia hold
individual elections to determine which candidate wins
152
13Chap12 150-159_10 152 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

He Can’t Win, So Why Vote for Him?
the electors. Electors are the people who officially vote

for the President and Vice-President. With the exception
of Maine and Nebraska, all states and the District of Co-
lumbia currently give the candidate who gets the most
votes (not necessarily the majority) the power to choose
electors. These winning candidates, in turn, vote for them
a month following the popular election. Thus, only one
presidential candidate may win the electors in a given state.
If this policy were in use for presidential elections, each

state would place the names of the candidates who quali-
fied on the ballot. Using 1980 and its three leading can-
didates, as an example, the voter would consider voting
like this:
A person who believed that Anderson was the best candi-

date could vote for him and other candidates if they so
chose. Perhaps they agreed with most of Anderson’s po-
sitions and disagreed with most of Reagan’s positions.
Such a voter might mark their ballot with a “1” for Ander-
son and a “2” for Carter.
In states in which neither Reagan nor Carter received fifty

percent of the vote, ballots would be read by the vote
counters for any second preference. Candidates named
on Anderson ballots as second preferences would receive
those votes in addition to the votes they received as first
preferences.
For example, if the first preference votes in a state went

like this:
153
13Chap12 150-159_10 153 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Reagan – 45%
Carter – 40%
Anderson – 15%
Anderson would be dropped from consideration for fin-

ishing last. Ballots listing Anderson first would be
checked for second preferences. If pro-Anderson voters
listed Carter and Reagan evenly on their second prefer-
ences, Reagan and Carter would each add half of
Anderson’s total of 15% to pick up an additional 7.5%.
The new results would read:
Reagan – 45% + 7.5% = 52.5%

Carter – 40% + 7.5% = 47.5%
Reagan would be declared the winner of the state for re-

ceiving more than 50% of the vote.
But what if most of Anderson’s supporters listed Carter

second? The result might put Carter as the winner. For
example, if three of every four Anderson supporters named
Carter as their second choice in the above scenario, the
result would go like this:
Reagan – 45% + one-fourth of 15% = 45% + 3.75% =

48.75%
Carter – 40% + three-fourths of 15% = 40% + 11.25% =
51.25%
Carter would be declared the winner since he received

154
13Chap12 150-159_10 154 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

more than half of the vote.
In any event, Anderson supporters would not see a vote

for him as a vote wasted. It is likely that more than 7% of
the voters would have listed him on the first ballot, know-
ing that they could vote for Carter or Reagan as a second
choice.
The Instant Runoff Voting system allows a voter to re-

flect their true feelings about the candidates. All too of-
ten, voters admit to “voting against” a certain candidate
by voting for their leading opponent. Now, voters could
vote for the candidate that they believe is best and “vote
against” the candidate they least favor by casting ballots
for other opponents.
Further, candidates with similar positions on issues would

not “split” voters holding those positions and thus risk
allowing a third candidate to take the election. For ex-
ample, Republicans who support a Patrick Buchanan can-
didacy but fear that voting for him would help the Demo-
cratic candidate could now vote for Buchanan and the
Republican choice.
This system ensures that the winning candidate be the

consensus choice. If, for example, most voters supported
a woman’s right to choose an abortion and abortion was
the leading issue in a campaign, the system would ensure
that a pro-choice candidate would win. A pro-life candi-
date could not count upon winning a plurality of the votes,
a common occurrence. In fact, in the 1992 presidential
155
13Chap12 150-159_10 155 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
election, 49 of the 50 states awarded electors to a candi-

date who received less than 50% of the vote.
Anderson is the only recent third-party candidate for Presi-

dent who held an elected office at the time of the presi-
dential election. Voters took him seriously—in fact, at
one point, he ranked second in California in polls. Presi-
dent Carter considered him a threat, telling undecided
voters that a vote for Anderson was wasted. What Ander-
son deserved was an election system that took him seri-
ously. Instant Runoff Voting would have done just that.
How Instant Runoff Would Have Settled the 2000 Election
Disputes over the vote counting in Florida triggered weeks

of lawsuits after the November 7 election. We could have
avoided the hassle of hand counts, hanging chads, and hard-
to-read ballots by using the Instant Runoff Voting system in
Florida and other states. Since the United States Constitu-
tion does not state how ballots should be written, each state
could change its balloting right now to avoid future debacles.
In Florida, the official final count looks like this:

Bush 2,912,790 = 49.04 % Nader 97,421 = 1.64 %
Gore 2,912,253 = 49.03 % Buchanan 17,472 = 0.29 %
Total: 5,939,936
Why not ask those who supported Nader and Buchanan

which candidate they preferred next? We can do that
without having to hold a second election.
156
13Chap12 150-159_10 156 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

Instant Runoff Voting would have asked all voters to state

as many preferences for candidates as there are candi-
dates. Here, in this modified list of candidates, each voter
could choose up to four candidates in order of preference.
Had any of these candidates received a majority of the

first preference votes, they would be declared the victor
of Florida’s 25 decisive electoral votes. Since they didn’t,
IRV uses the votes the last-place finisher (here, Buchanan)
to add votes to the remaining candidates.
Who would each of Buchanan’s 17,472 voters have made

their second preference? Given Buchanan and Bush’s agree-
ment on the pro-life position on abortion, most probably would
have picked Bush. Another segment might have chosen Nader
since he and Buchanan agreed that NAFTA was a mistake.
Still others might not have made a second preference.
Those second preferences would be translated to the three

remaining candidates as follows (these totals are obviously
hypothetical):
Bush 2,912,790 from original vote +
10,000 = 2,922,790 = 49.21 %
Gore 2,912,253 from original vote +
1,000 = 2,913,253 = 49.05 %
Nader 97,421 from original vote +
5,000 = 102,421 = 1.72 %
Since none has a majority, the count moves to the next phase.
The remaining ballots in which no one made a second
157
13Chap12 150-159_10 157 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
preference would then be disqualified. So, too, would

Nader since he is now in last place. His votes would be
checked for second preferences. Since IRV looks to the
“next preference,” Buchanan’s ballots who picked Nader
second would also be checked for third preferences. On
the other hand, ballots listing Buchanan first and either
Gore or Bush second would not be checked further at this
time since those two are still in the running.
How would each of Nader’s followers decide upon a sec-

ond preference? Despite Nader’s comments that he did
not care if he cost Gore the election, his followers would
likely view Gore as much more palatable to Bush for en-
vironmental reasons, if nothing else. The whole idea of
Nader “spoiling” the election for Gore does not come into
play here. The question would be: could Gore take ap-
proximately 10,000 more of the Nader second preferences
(and Buchanan third preferences) than Bush?
158
13Chap12 150-159_10 158 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

159
13Chap12 150-159_10 159 6/9/05, 6:15 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
“Shutting up those irritating third party

candidates is the one thing we Democrats
and Republicans agree on.”
160
14Chap13 160-162_3 160 6/9/05, 6:16 AM

13 The Debate Debate
The
Debate Debate
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“Why is it that those who have something to say can’t say it, while
those who have nothing to say keep saying it?” - Anonymous
T
he League of Women Voters denied John Ander-
son an invitation on the grounds that he did not
have 15% of the vote in the polls.
Where did the League get 15% as its standard?

No law supported this position. The organization may, un-
wittingly, have contributed to Anderson’s poll showing by
denying him participation. In the weeks leading up to the
debate, people polled knew that Carter and Reagan would
appear in a debate, but did not know of Anderson’s status.
Some of these people may have been swayed not to name
him as their candidate because of this doubt.
“I could have doubled my showing if the League had let

me debate Carter and Reagan,” says Anderson. It is also
worth pointing out that Ross Perot received 19% of the
vote the year he participated three times in debates with
Clinton and Bush and only 8% of the vote when he did
not receive an invitation to debate.
This situation is why we need an objective standard: ap-

pearance on enough state ballots to win the Electoral
161
14Chap13 160-162_3 161 6/9/05, 6:16 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
College electors given by the states. Since the number

currently needed to win the election is 270, any candidate
on ballots of states with electors adding up to 270 or more
ought to be included in all nationally televised debates.
Candidates who have the theoretical chance to win should
be given the chance to test that theory.
The audience would get to see all candidates who have

the chance to serve them.
162
14Chap13 160-162_3 162 6/9/05, 6:16 AM

14 Vincent Hamm
Vincent Hamm
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“Always vote for a principle, though you vote alone, and you may cherish
the sweet reflection that your vote is never lost.” - John Quincy Adams
V
incent Hamm meets the qualifications for
President under the Constitution. He is at least
35 years old, he is a natural born citizen and
he has lived in the United States for the past
14 years.
He is a candidate again for the Presidency, having run in

1996. Yet the media rarely mentions his name. Why?
Because he isn’t a career politician like Al Gore or George

W. Bush. Because the media hasn’t followed him for sev-
eral years. Because the media cannot (or will not) distin-
guish him from the rest of the dozens of candidates run-
ning for the Presidency.
Why won’t the media cover candidates like him? Per-

haps the mass media (the large newspapers and news sta-
tions) sees its role as a “screen” or “gatekeeper” to let in
certain candidates for heavy coverage. In effect, the me-
dia does the public’s homework for it.
But the screening works poorly for candidates like Hamm
163
15Chap14 163-164_2 163 6/9/05, 6:17 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
who have original ideas they want to share with the pub-
lic. How many “screened” candidates favor ending the
War on Drugs, as Hamm does? None.
How many “screened” candidates currently operate their own

business and understand the frustration in trying to find health
care for themselves and their employees? None.
How many “screened” candidates struggle to get their

message out? None.
So, the public likely won’t hear much of Hamm. For all
we know, his ideas could help us solve some of our
nation’s biggest problems. For all we know, Hamm could
be the next FDR or Abraham Lincoln, an innovative presi-
dent challenging the public to do better.
If we, the public, were willing to do a little research, we

could find out more about Vince Hamm and others.
164
15Chap14 163-164_2 164 6/9/05, 6:17 AM

15What We Have Learned in the Last Twenty Years
What We Have
Learned in the
Last Twenty Years
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“All politics are based on the indifference
of the majority” – James Reston
S
ooner or later, the campaign egocentric tactics of
vagueness, lack of sacrifice and attacking opponents
rather than ideas lead to problems of governing.
Vagueness for a candidate can lead a President to
be indecisive. Failure to call for a sacrifice as a
candidate makes a President awkward when he finds he has
no choice but to look for sacrifices to solve the nation’s prob-
lems. Attacking opponents rather than ideas as a candidate
can cause a President to fail to cope with the constant criti-
cism every President must withstand.
Vague Candidates Make Poor Policy

Decisions as Elected Officials
Ronald Reagan’s vagueness over policy toward hostage
taking allowed him to avoid taking a position that would
cost him votes. With no public policy, Reagan had the
choice of stating a policy after his election or keeping
policy secret. Either choice might prove costly.
Taking a public position on hostage taking would have

subjected him to the same problems as he faced during
the election. Only now, instead of losing votes, he had
165
16Chap15 165-178_14 165 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
the consideration of losing public support for his agenda

of legislation. He needed the support of the public to
convince Congress to pass his tax cuts and raise defense
spending, for example.
Had Reagan made a speech in which he said he would

trade weapons to the Ayatollah, the public would have
registered its discontent through opinion polls and letters
to elected officials. His own party leaders would have
advised him against the policy for fear that their popular-
ity would decline along with his. Stating policies openly
keeps the President from pursuing extremist or unethical
policies. The problem with keeping policy secret is the
corollary of this idea: secrecy encourages the president to
act questionably.
Later on, during his time as the President, he learned that

people from the United States were held as hostages in Leba-
non. This incident forced Reagan to show his hand.
Knowing that selling arms would sound like appeasement

to hostage taking, Reagan decided to handle the problem
secretly. He decided to sell weapons to Iran through Israel
since he knew few people would believe the two countries,
traditionally enemies, would be involved in a secret deal in-
volving the United States. In return Iran persuaded the
Hezbelloh, the group holding the hostages, to release some
of them. When this policy became uncovered through the
Arab media, Reagan’s popularity underwent a huge decline.
The Iran-Contra Scandal taught the voters and the president
166
16Chap15 165-178_14 166 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

What We Have Learned in the Last Twenty Years
a lesson. Secret policy conducted on behalf of the public, no

matter how well intentioned, will not be tolerated. Those
who hold the highest office in the United States must be
prepared to explain their decisions coherently to the public
and to accept responsibility for what results from those deci-
sions. The best way for the president to practice explaining
decisions as president is to explain ideas about decisions as
a candidate. Voters, for their part, should shun candidates
who speak of “secret plans.”
George Bush showed vagueness in his 1988 campaign by

calling for a “kinder, gentler America.” Even when re-
porters expressed puzzlement as to what the phrase meant,
he continued to say it. Since the message sounded posi-
tive, some voters felt reassured. Since the messages were
not altogether clear, he did not have to commit himself to
any specific policy following the election.
Bush spoke of kindness and gentleness vaguely on the

one hand. On the other hand, he frequently used the
pictures of a black man, Willie Horton on his televi-
sion commercials and he mentioned him and his crime
during his speeches. When he saw his position in the
polls continuing to escalate, he had no reason to rec-
oncile the contradiction during the campaign. The
minority of people who loudly opposed Bush’s use of
Horton could not harm him as a candidate.
But, as Bush soon found out, that same minority could

hurt him as the President. When Thurgood Marshall
stepped down from the Supreme Court, Bush selected
167
16Chap15 165-178_14 167 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Clarence Thomas, a judge with just over a year’s experi-

ence on the federal court of appeals. When the minority
who opposed Bush’s use of Horton learned that Thomas
was black, they accused Bush of playing the “race card.”
This minority became quite vocal upon hearing allega-
tions that Thomas had once harassed a female employee
some years before. He narrowly won confirmation.
Even after Thomas’ confirmation, Bush never overcame the

charge that he used race for his own advantage. When many
in Los Angeles rioted to protest the acquittal of police offic-
ers in the beating of a black motorist caught on videotape,
Bush stayed clear of the area, unable to unite a public largely
convinced of Bush’s cynicism on racial matters.
The problems Bush had in racial issues should have taught

the voters a lesson. Those who use divisive tactics as candi-
dates will use them after election. The only way voters can
stop the use of the “race” card, or any other card for that
matter, is to vote against the candidates who play them.
Bill Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination for

president on behalf of the “forgotten middle class.” He
never defined who he believed comprised this class or
how they had been forgotten. Instead, he said in a cam-
paign ad in January 1992, “I’ve offered a comprehen-
sive plan to get our economy moving again....It starts
with a tax cut on the middle class.”
Campaigning in New Hampshire on January 12, 1992, he

said, “I want to make it very clear that this middle-class
168
16Chap15 165-178_14 168 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we’re going

to make to have a short-term economic strategy.”
A year later, just before his inauguration, Clinton changed

his tune. On January 14, 1993, he stated that “from New Hamp-
shire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystify me, the press
thought the most important issue in the race was the middle class
tax cut. I never did meet any voter who thought that.”
Why hadn’t Clinton corrected those in the media who men-

tioned the middle class tax cut as the most important issue?
Why did he never say who the middle class was? This lack
of clarity may have served as a precursor to his later insis-
tence that he did not have “sexual relations” with intern
Monica Lewinsky.
Clinton’s incidents of misspeaking should serve to remind

voters that candidates do not improve their clarity of
speech upon election. Reporters must do a more thor-
ough job in asking follow-up questions. Voters should
not assume that candidates or presidents omit giving the
public favorable news. Experience about many recent
presidents has shown that information that leaks out after
a scandal breaks is frequently unfavorable to the presi-
dent. Revelations of Clinton’s conduct with Lewinsky
fits into the same pattern as revelations of Nixon’s in-
volvement in the Watergate cover-up.
Candidates May Not Ask Us to Sacrifice, but Elected

Officials Will
Candidate George Bush’s refusal to consider new taxes
169
16Chap15 165-178_14 169 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
prompted voters to believe that a President Bush would

not call upon them to sacrifice. Upon taking office, Bush
had to admit that few options could solve the problem of
a growing budget deficit. None of his options, such as
raising taxes or making big cuts in government spending,
would please the public.
After putting off the idea for a year, Bush asked the lead-
ers of Congress to work with him on a plan to raise taxes.
Factions of his own Republican Party cried betrayal and
told him their constituents had counted on “no new taxes.”
The Democratic Party, frustrated by Bush’s ability to win
votes on his refusal to raise taxes, told him he should have
spoken before the election.
Too late, Bush learned that on some issues he would not be

able to please everyone. By refusing to ask for sacrifices as
a candidate, Bush boxed himself into a corner. Had he learned
the tough lesson of telling the public what it did not want to
hear then, he would have been prepared to ask the public for
sacrifices as the President. Thanks to the tax fiasco, Bush
lost popularity and had trouble governing the national eco-
nomic policy for the rest of his term.
The voters ought to know by now that we cannot obtain

something for nothing. If we want something new from
our government, like a new health insurance program,
we will have to pay higher taxes for it. If we are serious
about reducing a budget deficit, we will have to sacrifice
programs or pay higher taxes. The only way to make
sure we do not become disappointed when presidents
170
16Chap15 165-178_14 170 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

abandon unreasonable promises is to refuse to vote for

candidates who make them.
Clinton made the same mistake of refusing to call for a

sacrifice that Bush did. He said he would reduce the deficit
by raising taxes on people with incomes of over $200,000
per year and by taxing foreigners and corporate polluters.
He conveniently targeted for tax raises groups that would
not or could not vote for him. The rich tend to vote Re-
publican, especially when the Democrat talks of raising
taxes on their class (as evidenced by the landslide losses
of Democrats George McGovern and Walter Mondale).
Corporate leaders whose businesses have been accused
of breaking the law are not likely to vote for the accuser.
And foreigners, by their definition, cannot vote.
The chicken of failing to ask for sacrifice came home to

roost quickly on Clinton. When forced to submit his first
budget in February 1993, he appealed to the public on tele-
vision by saying, “I had hoped to invest in your
future...without asking more of you. And I’ve worked harder
than I’ve ever worked in my life to meet that goal. But I can’t.”
The public could not vote, having made its electoral deci-
sion for Clinton three months prior. But the members of
Congress could. All Republicans showed their displea-
sure for Clinton’s sudden call to sacrifice by voting unani-
mously against his budget proposal in both the House and
the Senate. One of Clinton’s rivals for the Democratic
nomination, Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, threatened
to hold out all week before the roll call before finally cast-
171
16Chap15 165-178_14 171 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
ing the deciding vote. Clinton won the battle, but his dis-
ingenuousness may have cost him a bigger war of respect
from members of both parties.
The voters should have learned from the Bush tax fiasco
just a few years before. We reap what we sow. We sowed
the seeds of broken promises by failing to consider that
Clinton would have to raise taxes.
Ronald Reagan, in the middle of an oil shortage, refused

to call for the public to make sacrifices on their consump-
tion habits. In his debate with John Anderson on Sep-
tember 21, 1980, he said, “…I believe that conservation,
at course, is worthy in and of itself. Anything that would
preserve, or help us use less energy, that would be fine,
and I’m for it. But I do not believe that conservation alone
is the answer to the present energy problem, because all
you’re doing then is staving off, by a short time, the day
when you would come to the end of the energy supply.”
Instead of acknowledging that the United States has for

years consumed more resources than its percentage of the
world’s population, Reagan turned and aimed at his fa-
vorite target: the government. He stated that “when you
stop to think that the government has taken over 100 mil-
lion acres of land out of circulation in Alaska, alone, that
is believed by geologists to contain much in the line of
minerals and energy sources, then I think it is the Gov-
ernment, and the Government with its own restrictions
and regulations, that is creating the energy crisis. That we
are, indeed, an energy-rich nation.”
172
16Chap15 165-178_14 172 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

Interestingly, in one of his first actions upon becoming

the President, Reagan removed the solar panels President
Carter had placed at the White House. He sent a message
to the public similar to the one he had given as a candi-
date: sacrifice is not necessary. Thus began a decade of
United States over-consumption.
Though the War in the Persian Gulf in 1991 did not take
place under his watch, Reagan’s refusal to ask the nation
to sacrifice its use of oil contributed to the United States’
decision to intervene. The rich supply of oil in Kuwait
and the threat that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein would
take control of it convinced President Bush, Reagan’s
successor, to send troops to the Gulf to drive the Iraqis
out of Kuwait. A sound policy of conservation would
have made such intervention pointless.
We should have known better than to listen to Reagan’s

lack of logic. The government is not an unknown or un-
controllable entity. It is a collection of people who carry
out the orders of the public. If the government really
caused the crisis that Reagan spoke of, it acted in accor-
dance with what people believed to be necessary. Reagan
simply avoided the issue of sacrifice altogether by blam-
ing a non-specific group. Voters must call the bluff of
candidates who use this type of tactic by pointing out the
fallacies of their arguments.
Candidates Who Attack Other Candidates Cover up

a Lack of Ideas
Bill Clinton chose not to address Jerry Brown’s primary
173
16Chap15 165-178_14 173 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
campaign questions about Whitewater and conflicts-of-

interest at his wife’s law firm. This tactic gave him a
boost in the polls among women and a reprieve from an-
swering too many questions about these topics for the rest
of the campaign, including the general election.
When he became President, Clinton could no longer hide

by attacking other people. Congress had passed a law
some years before to establish an Office of the Indepen-
dent Counsel. This office had the authority to conduct
investigations of members of the administration for sus-
pected improprieties and crimes. Clinton could no longer
count on a Democratic-controlled Congress to refuse to
investigate him through Congressional Committees.
Clinton never demonstrated an ability to confront unpleas-

ant allegations about his conduct. He had an opportunity
to explain the Whitewater matter as a candidate and could
have used the opportunity to convince voters of his hon-
esty and candor by answering questions about these types
of matters. But as president, he continued to hide, attack-
ing Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr instead of answer-
ing questions. When he finally had no choice but to tes-
tify before Starr’s grand jury, his answers shocked the
public instead of reassuring it.
Many voters saw Clinton’s evasiveness in handling allega-

tions throughout the 1992 campaign. We should know that
if the evasiveness does not go away, neither do the allega-
tions. Clinton’s problems with Gennifer Flowers,
Whitewater, et al became a part of the package we received
174
16Chap15 165-178_14 174 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

when Clinton became the President. Never again should we

expect a candidate to change who they are after election.
Ronald Reagan attacked President Carter throughout the

campaign of 1980. His most memorable line was his re-
frain to Carter, “There you go again” in identifying bro-
ken promises Carter had made. Reagan succeeded in
making President Carter the issue of campaign instead of
discussing ideas.
As President, Reagan did not care to discuss ideas. When

his goal of balancing the budget by 1983 went by the
wayside, Reagan blamed the Democratic Congress and
reminded reporters that the Democrats had controlled the
House of Representatives for many years. When the
Democrats proposed a tax increase, Reagan went back to
his favorite refrain, “There they go again.”
Again, presidents do what worked for them as candidates.

We rewarded Reagan and all of his egocentric methods
when we elected him.
In the 1988 campaign, Bush repeatedly called opponent

Dukakis “the liberal governor of Massachusetts” and
dubbed him “Tax Hike Mike” and the state
“Taxachusetts.” When he did get around to discussing
ideas, he told some outright lies.
As ABC’s Sam Donaldson pointed out on the Bush ac-

ceptance speech, “Bush distorted Dukakis’ record
liberally...He said Dukakis would deprive everyone of a
175
16Chap15 165-178_14 175 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
handgun. Gun control Dukakis is for, but he’s never said

that. He suggested Dukakis was the one who didn’t want
voluntary prayer to be said in the school. But of course
it’s the Supreme Court of the United States who said that.
He said Dukakis is preaching an America in decline, but
in fact Dukakis has very carefully not said that. He said
just the opposite.”
With this record of false accusations and his broken prom-

ise of not raising taxes, it is hardly any surprise that the
Democratic majority in Congress did not work well with
President Bush. Early in his term, Bush nominated John
Tower, former Senator from Texas and arms control ne-
gotiator, to be his Secretary of Defense. Tower’s stinging
defeat could be read as a “payback” to Bush for some of
his campaign tactics.
We know now that paybacks never end. But even more

importantly, we could have foreseen all of these circum-
stances while each President was a candidate. None of these
presidents changed at all. We should know by now that a
politician will govern as president in the same manner that
they campaigned. We have no reason to believe our next
president will be any different. If voters would keep this
principle in mind when voting, we would improve our
chances of electing a president capable of governing us.
We have seen capable presidential candidates on our bal-

lots for the past twenty years. Anderson, Dukakis and
Brown challenged us to make sacrifices for the benefit of
our nation and gave specific details of what they would
176
16Chap15 165-178_14 176 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

do. Not only did they warn us of the perils of the egocen-
tric strategy of taking the path of least resistance, they
discussed the benefits of the proposals of sacrifice.
Anderson warned about dependence upon oil leading us to

war in the Middle East ten years before Desert Storm. He
also pointed to the benefits of a tax on gasoline ( more rev-
enue and a cleaner environment. Dukakis refused to prom-
ise not to raise taxes because he wanted to reduce the deficit
and the debt which cost us billions in interest each year.
Brown warned us of politicians who were “bought and paid
for” by high contributions because he wanted a cam-
paign and a presidency that they average voter could
have access to.
Other candidates who preached sacrifice, such as Walter

Mondale and Paul Tsongas, have been available to us as can-
didates for the nation’s highest office. But we never had the
services of any of these candidates. One hard lesson we
have learned is that most voters have turned a deaf ear to
news they do not want to hear, like a raise in taxes.
Will this pattern continue? It depends upon the voters.

We must find the same courage our altruistic candidates
had in mind in their willingness to tell us what we did not
want to hear.
We have also learned that third-party candidates do not

stand a chance under the current election rules. Currently,
only the Republican and Democratic candidates are guar-
anteed the opportunity to debate on national television.
177
TRUTH MATTERS
Also, voters may only make one choice, which leads some
voters to believe that voting third party is a wasted effort.
We have seen third-party candidates John Anderson and

Ross Perot battle, sometimes successfully and sometimes
not, to be included in these debates. Anderson’s popular-
ity, higher than 15% in some polls, went down after the
League of Women Voters denied him an opportunity to
debate with then-Governor Reagan and President Carter.
He ended up with seven percent of the vote. Perot’s non-
inclusion in the 1996 debates likely contributed to his eight
percent showing, down sharply from 19% in 1992, when
he was allowed to debate.
We have seen voter dissatisfaction with candidates of the

two leading parties. Eighty percent of the voters viewed
Reagan and Carter unfavorably in 1980. None of our
three most recently elected Presidents ranked high in popu-
larity upon their inauguration. Many voters expressed
interest in other candidates. We thus have learned that
there is room for third-party candidates in our minds but
not yet in reality.
178
16Chap15 165-178_14 178 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

162000 Issues: How We Can Apply What We Have Learned
2000 Issues: How

We Can Apply What
We Have Learned
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
“The people’s ignorance is far more dangerous than
the treachery of politicians.” - Hilda
W
hether the voters will choose the altruistic can-
didate or not in 2000 depends in large part
upon how voters perceive the leading issues
of the campaign. How politicians discuss is-
sues and how the public reacts to the discus-
sion through preference of candidates in polls
give us a strong indication of how the public will vote. Ulti-
mately, the real question is whether the voters will force can-
didates to choose between egocentrism and losing.
In the months leading up to the 2000 primaries, several

issues are getting heavy mention by the candidates for
the party presidential nominations. For example, Demo-
crats Bill Bradley and Al Gore have debated health care,
Republican John McCain has brought up the need for
campaign finance reform, and several Republican candi-
dates have called for drastic changes in the tax system,
even the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service.
McCain and Senator Feingold of Wisconsin have teamed
179
17Chap16 179-197_19 179 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
up for the past several years to push through a campaign

finance reform bill. Among other things, they wish to
regulate “soft” money contributions, which go to a politi-
cal party rather than a specific candidate. They also seek
to further restrict contributions from private sources.
Some politicians in both parties say they support a ban on

soft money, but qualify the ban with the reservation that the
other party must do the same. Such politicians oppose “uni-
lateral” action by their party. Such a stance is misleading
because it does not commit the politician to take any action.
It falls into the category of vagueness for that reason.
The “my party won’t accept soft money as long as the

other party does not accept it” also identifies a need for
sacrifice but fails to ask for it. Politicians concerned about
the influence the wealthy, the corporations and the unions
have upon the election system acknowledge that some-
thing must be done to reduce that influence. Legislation
reducing that influence would force at least one group of
people to contribute less to the parties.
A candidate of altruism would be specific about what they

mean by “soft” money and any other term they use in
their discussion, such as “political action committees.”
The candidate would ask the public to make sacrifices,
like obeying any new limits on contributions or paying
taxes to support public financing. They would criticize
the current system rather than a politician.
Critics of “soft money” have used the term to symbolize
180
17Chap16 179-197_19 180 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

a system bought by the wealthy. Though this depiction

may be accurate, the public would benefit from office
seekers who could explain the rules of money in politics
first. More voters would have an understanding of why
contributions to political parties present a problem and
what can be done to solve it.
An altruistic candidate would state the facts about campaign

finance laws. They would say something like: “Individuals
may contribute no more than $2,000 and political action com-
mittees no more than $5,000 per election to a candidate for
federal office. Federal elected officeholders include the presi-
dent, members of the U.S. House of Representatives, mem-
bers of the U.S. Senate and the vice president.
“Currently, laws prohibit corporations and unions from mak-

ing contributions to influence federal elections. Individuals
may contribute up to $25,000 per year to a national political
party. Corporations and unions resort to contributing in ways
that do not break these laws. For one, they often form politi-
cal action committees (PACs) with other members of their
unions or corporations and make contributions on behalf of
the PAC. They also make contributions to political parties
in such a way so that they do not give directly to a national
party or a federal candidate.
“The later type of contribution is often called ‘soft money.’

Just as ‘hard money’ is any contribution governed by laws
like the $2000 per individual limit, ‘soft money’ contri-
butions have no laws to guide them. To avoid influencing
a federal election, corporations and unions contribute to
181
17Chap16 179-197_19 181 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
political parties to accounts designated for state politics.

Again, no laws govern these contributions. Thus, corpo-
rations and unions can contribute unlimited sums of money
to the political parties. The biggest corporations and
unions influence the parties with this money.
“I propose we forbid corporations and unions from mak-

ing any contributions to political parties or political cam-
paigns by any means, including via political action com-
mittees. The leaders of my political party may become
upset with me for taking away a big source of money
they use for overhead expenditures such as campaign
headquarters, but I am willing to take that risk. My party
belongs to individuals and though corporations and unions
play major roles in our society, the cost of their participa-
tion in our elections is simply too high.”
An altruist would sacrifice money that would benefit them

voluntarily in favor of reducing the influence of these
groups. They would target a specific contribution limit
for contributions to their party. They would unilaterally
agree not to accept contributions above that limit regard-
less of what the other parties’ policies on this matter were.
Sincere change is made when the person proposing the
change does not wait for others to act.
The public will register its opinion. Collectively, it can

decide with this issue or any other that it will not force
candidates into a position of either telling the truth or
winning. We, the public, can and should reward candi-
dates honest enough to admit the corruption of soft money
182
17Chap16 179-197_19 182 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

and who are willing to act by themselves to buck the sys-

tem with their own campaign. We, the public, can ignore that
one party has more money than another does and not let the
amount of money or the amount of advertising sway our votes.
The War on Drugs
Many candidates have spoken of the need to be “tough on

drugs.” They talk about the danger drugs present to our so-
ciety and mention ways to combat the problem. Some sug-
gest stiffer sentences for those who use or sell them.
Talk such as being “tough on drugs” is vague. For one, drugs

by themselves do not present a problem. For another, “tough”
can mean any one of a number of ideas. Politicians favor
the word due to its general connotation of strength, a posi-
tive word. Use of this phrase thus allows a candidate to
appear strong without saying anything.
Perhaps the “tough” politicians really mean that they will be

“tough” on drug dealers. Why don’t they just say so? If
they said so, their remarks could be construed to mean they
favor the most extreme punishment for drug dealers, the death
penalty. The Supreme Court ruled in Coker v. Georgia that
the death penalty is unconstitutional for all crimes except
first-degree murder. A candidate who opposes settled con-
stitutional precedent without suggesting an amendment to
the Constitution opens him or herself to justifiable criticism.
A candidate of altruism would be specific about what they

believe the best policy is for drug abusers and to which
183
17Chap16 179-197_19 183 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
drugs they refer. The candidate would ask the public to

make sacrifices, such as a willingness to try a different
approach to solve the problem. They would criticize the
prosecution of the current policy rather than criticize poli-
ticians who support the policy.
One way an altruist would view the problem of drug use is

by distinguishing it from other acts society deems criminal.
“When a person contacts, or causes contact, with another
person in a way that harms the other person, they commit
the crime of battery in California (other states similarly out-
law this activity, but may name it something else). When a
person takes a good from the possession of another without
consent, they commit the crime of larceny.
“The law forbids both activities because of the harm they

create. Battery causes harm to the victim, whereas larceny
harms a person’s interest in something they own or possess.
In order to prove these crimes have occurred, a prosecutor
must prove the perpetrator intended to cause the harm.
“Where is this harm in the use or possession of any drug?

Medical experts have told us about the memory impair-
ment marijuana causes, the possibility of a sudden heart
attack from cocaine use, and the damage to the brain
brought on by crack, but who receives this harm? The
user does. Clearly, the harm to the user instead of an-
other person or to property ought to make us see this prob-
lem differently than other types of criminal behavior.
“Why, then, do we punish those who use drugs? The us-
184
17Chap16 179-197_19 184 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

ers punish themselves. Ordinarily, when a person hurts

him or herself, we view them as sick. We should treat
drug abuse as an illness. Yes, it would cost us taxpayers
more to provide medical treatment, but our society would
benefit in two ways when people get off drugs. We would
stop wasting law enforcement resources on them and they
would have a better chance at being productive members
of society. I ask you, the voters, to make the sacrifice of
higher taxes to help our society.
“When the number of users declines, so, too, will the num-
ber of dealers. The dealers cannot operate when people
do not feel a need for substances. They will have no busi-
ness without their customers. We must then focus our
attention on the children of our society, whom the dealers
will rely upon to have any chance to sell drugs.
“How we can best keep children away from drugs lies at

the heart of this issue. By definition, children cannot form
consent to such an activity. They rely upon us to protect
them from danger like people who would encourage them
to damage their health. For that reason, I support the in-
carceration of those who sell drugs to minors, people less
than eighteen years of age. However, I do not support the
incarceration of those who sell drugs to adults. Society is
simply not harmed by this transaction in the way that it is
harmed when its children are taken advantage of.
“Medical experts must study all drugs for any value to soci-
ety. Upon finding them, our laws should reflect the drug’s
use with legalization or a limited form such as medicinal use.”
185
17Chap16 179-197_19 185 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Health Care Coverage
Historically, the Democratic Party supported health care

coverage for all people in the United States. Every Demo-
cratic presidential candidate from Harry Truman in 1948
to Bill Clinton in 1992 supported universal health care
coverage. After Clinton’s attempt to make this coverage
legislation failed in 1994, he abandoned the idea and did
not mention it in the 1996 campaign. Now Bradley and
Gore have revived it as a Democratic issue.
A candidate of altruism would be specific about who would

be covered, how the coverage would take place, and how
any rise in government spending would be accounted for.
The candidate would acknowledge the costs and ask the
public to make any necessary sacrifices to achieve this goal.
They would critique the proposals other candidates might
make and would not attack the other candidates.
The altruist might ask voters to consider the costs of not

insuring the millions who have no health insurance in our
nation. “Where do the uninsured go when they get sick?
They could have a contagious disease and not know it
and pass it on to other people.”
“What if an uninsured person faces an emergency and must go

to the hospital? Then the doctors would have to provide medical
assistance. And who pays for that? All of the taxpayers must
pay for these visits. We will have to pay no matter what.”
“The millions of people represent roughly one-seventh of
186
17Chap16 179-197_19 186 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

our population. We cannot solve the problem of insuring all

of them right away. We would be wise to break the problem
down. About 15 million people in this group are children.
Our new health care system could cover them first.
“We have a good idea about the economic situation of the

families of these children. They are not able to afford health
insurance on their own. They likely cannot afford the pre-
miums and payments. If we are to insure this group, we
must devise a system that does not require payment promptly.
“I propose that we regulate the health insurance industry

to insure children. Insurance should be required to allow
payment over a long period of time, much in the way credit
card companies do. In the short term, insurance compa-
nies will lose because they will provide more and receive
less. Also, the already insured will lose since insurance
companies may raise premiums to account for some of
the shortfall. I must ask for these sacrifices in order to
better the health of our children and our society.
“As for the remaining people without insurance, I must

confess that I have no instant solution. As I mentioned,
resolution to this matter will take several years. We can
start right now by working in our states, the great labora-
tories of the U.S. We need them to experiment to find
cost-efficient ways of insuring everyone.”
Entitlements
A large percentage of federal government spending goes to “en-
187
17Chap16 179-197_19 187 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
titlement” programs like Social Security and Medicare. People

who reach a certain age are entitled to receive program benefits.
There are two schools of thought as to the best policy for

eligibility: one theory is that all people who pay into these
programs should receive the benefits. The opposing theory
would restrict benefits to those who need them.
Both theories have their advantages. The former idea is

based upon the concept of fairness. People who pay to
support a program should reap its benefits, especially since
Social Security was designed to ensure adequate finan-
cial support and Medicare as medical coverage for the
elderly. Furthermore, people pay Social Security taxes
during their working years and many rely upon the
government’s promise of sustenance. A recent report by
the American Association of Retired Persons showed that
almost half of all people receiving benefits rely upon them
for at least half of their income.
If everyone in the United States needed Social Security and

Medicare, altruism would have no role in the issue. Candi-
dates of altruism do not ask for sacrifices from those who can-
not make them. But, not everyone needs these entitlements.
How do we determine who needs entitlements and who doesn’t?
Proponents of the second theory use a test to make this

determination. Since it groups people by their relation to
the average, or mean, of the population in terms of wealth,
it is called the “means test.”
188
17Chap16 179-197_19 188 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

This group proposes that people with wealth significantly

beyond the mean do not need the entitlements and should
sacrifice them for the good of reducing spending. An
altruistic candidate would look beyond the current bud-
get surplus and consider cutting unnecessary spending in
case the economy takes a different turn.
The altruistic candidate would say, “At best we can only project
our economic future. Unexpected events like wars, recessions
and the like can change our economic outlook in a hurry. We
must therefore be cautious of our government spending.
“Government spending is both for and from the people. We

must be cautious that the government only spends upon those
who need it. That is why I am asking that Social Security be
given first to those who depend upon it. We will achieve
this goal by conducting an annual means test to determine
the average income level of those receiving social security.
I acknowledge and appreciate the sacrifice that the wealthy
of this nation are doing by foregoing.”
Taxes
To their credit, most of the 2000 candidates have not made

the pledge of “no new taxes.” Ironically, George W. Bush,
son of the president most infamous for making such a
promise, said in a debate that in his presidency there would
be “tax cuts, so help me God.” The rest of the Republi-
cans and Democrats appear to be a bit more pragmatic
about tax policies.
189
17Chap16 179-197_19 189 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Some Republicans like Steve Forbes have favored a “flat

tax,” in which all taxpayers pay the same percentage of
their income in taxes. This tax policy would call upon
some of the voters to sacrifice in order to maintain a bal-
anced budget.
The burden of sacrifice would depend upon whether ex-

emptions are included. For example, Forbes’ plan does
not tax the first $36,000 of the income of a family of four.
Most of the tax burden would thus shift to the middle and
upper classes since the exemption would account for a
smaller percentage of their incomes.
Given the projected surpluses in future years, many candi-

dates have described economic policies that would use some
or all of this money. Discussion of how to spend the surplus
can mislead voters because the surplus is far from certain.
An economic recession, for example, could negate it.
Voters have formulated opinions as to how to spend the

money. A February 1999 poll conducted by ICR of Me-
dia, PA for the Associated Press showed that 49 percent
of those polled wanted the surplus to be used to fund tax
cuts. Thirty-five percent favored paying the national debt
while only 14 percent wanted new social programs.
The voters who want tax cuts or new social programs can-
not be blamed for wanting to spend the money in ways
that will assist certain groups of people. Tax cuts will
benefit those who pay the most taxes, the rich. Social
programs will aid those who need them the most, the poor.
190
17Chap16 179-197_19 190 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

But these ideas are, by themselves, divisive. We need a

new way to approach our economy in order to stop forc-
ing presidential candidates to mislead us and convince us
that either tax cuts or new programs are what the nation
as a whole needs. This new approach would take the
whole nation’s need to collect taxes into consideration.
We first start with the best and worst times for the gov-
ernment to collect our taxes which are based, respectively,
upon a strong economy and a weak economy.
During a strong economy, people are best able to pay their

taxes. Most people have jobs that pay well enough so that
they do not have to live paycheck to paycheck. When unem-
ployment is high, however, a large section of the voters are
out of work and are therefore unable to pay much in taxes.
An altruistic candidate could explain his or her economic

plan like this: “Our tax system should reflect the state of the
economy. I will request that Congress lower tax rates in a
poor economy and raise them when the economy is strong.
Surplus money raised during good economic times will be
invested and used during times of recession. I will insist
that, barring an emergency, no one touch this money.
“In this type of economic policy, all will be asked to make

sacrifices at the same time for the betterment of the fu-
ture. Furthermore, unemployed people will benefit only
when the economy indicates that there are few jobs to go
to. When the economy shows job growth, the unemployed
will have incentive to get a job.”
191
17Chap16 179-197_19 191 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Signs from the Voters in 2000

With clarity, with sacrifice and with the belief that ideas
advance our society, candidates with these messages can
deliver messages to present a vision of a better nation.
The real question is how the voters will respond.
The early stages of the 2000 election indicate signs in the

affirmative. In his first debate, Governor George W. Bush
(R-TX) told a questioner that he was reading a book about
Dean Acheson, President Truman’s Secretary of State. In
the next debate, a questioner asked him what he had
learned from the book.
Bush’s reply made no reference to Acheson’s policies or

achievements, such as the creation of NATO or his role in
shaping the Truman Doctrine, which saved Greece and
Turkey. He simply said, “The lessons learned are that the
United States must not retreat within our borders; that we
must promote the peace. Our nation’s greatest export to
the world has been, is and always will be, the incredible
freedoms we understand in the great land called America.”
Newspapers throughout the nation and overseas reported

Bush’s answer. Many called it “standard stump speech”
and others pointed out that primary opponent Senator John
McCain (AZ) gave a more thorough understanding of
Acheson when he discussed the decision he and Truman
made about U.S. involvement in the Korean War. On this
occasion, the media and many voters identified an instance
of Bush vagueness.
192
17Chap16 179-197_19 192 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

Clarity in Communications
Bush gave other vague answers. For example, he said
that Christ was his favorite political philosopher “because
he changed my heart.” On another occasion, he refused
“to accept the premise that surpluses are going to
decline…if I’m the president.”
Christians with conservative political convictions ap-

plauded the answer about Christ, but many other voters
did not. William Pfaff of the Boston Globe pointed out
that the Biblical Jesus discussed religion and politics by
saying, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and
unto God that which is God’s.” The American Atheists
quickly reminded voters that the Constitution forbids any
religious test for public office. Other writers compared
the statements Jesus made in the Bible about concern
for the poor and refusing to take revenge on others to
Bush’s lack of concern over poverty and his support
for the death penalty.
As for his second comment, few editorialists made any

mention of it. But the voters began to register their opin-
ions about Bush at this time. At the time he made these
comments, his standings in the polls declined sharply.
Previously, he had led Senator McCain in the first pri-
mary state of New Hampshire. Afterwards, he found him-
self losing in that state. Perhaps the “balance” of voters
in the Granite State voiced their unhappiness at Bush’s
vagueness and his lack of understanding of the uncertain-
ties of our economy.
193
17Chap16 179-197_19 193 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Sacrifices
With the budget surplus announced by the government at
the end of Fiscal Year 1999, candidates have talked more
about non-sacrificial ideas of cutting taxes and additional
government programs. Bush proposed a $483 billion tax
relief over five years. Gore and Bradley discussed ex-
panding the number of people covered by health insur-
ance. Bradley said his plan would cost $650 billion over
ten years. Gore responded with what he said would be a
less expensive plan. Bradley then accused Gore of leav-
ing too many people out.
Both focused upon the benefits of their respective plans.

Both identified the need for a sacrifice to make the vision
of more people insured for health care costs. In that sense,
both acted altruistically. However, this appeal for sacri-
fice lost some of its luster when the Congressional Bud-
get Office, a non-partisan organization, projected a much
higher estimate for the cost of both plans than either Gore
or Bradley had indicated.
Attacking Ideas instead of Opponents

The New York Times’ Peter Marks opined in early Janu-
ary 2000 that the candidates for the party nominations
were “noncombatitive.” He said that because of the at-
tack ads of Steve Forbes in 1996 that “the public’s pa-
tience with attack ads has worn thin.”
Indeed, the early Republican debates resembled a mutual

admiration society. Governor Bush said that Senator
McCain was “a good man.” Steve Forbes asked Bush if
194
17Chap16 179-197_19 194 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

he would address him as “Steve.” Alan Keyes said to

Bush, “I like you.” When given the opportunity to ask
other candidates questions, most asked questions of those
who supported their particular point of view, as if to rein-
force the unity among them.
As the campaign wore on, however, there were signs that

some of the candidates were prepared to attack opponents
directly instead of attacking their ideas. In Iowa in Janu-
ary, Bill Bradley asked voters for help “against the Gore-
istas.” Bradley later dismissed the comment as “whimsi-
cal” but a careful look at the word indicates it may have
been meant as a smear against Gore.
Frequently, followers of politicians identify themselves

or are identified with suffixes. Fans of Richard Nixon
were called “Nixies” and George McGovern supporters
were frequently called “McGovernites.” The suffixes of
“ies” and “ites” are in the English language and serve to
modify the key words, Nixon and McGovern, respectively.
But there is no English suffix called “ista.” There is, how-

ever, such a term in the Spanish language. It modifies a
term in a manner similar to “ies” and “ites.” In recent
history, people in the United States have referred to a group
in Nicaragua as the “Sandanistas.”
They governed that nation for about ten years. Because of

their support of Marxist economic policies, the group was
not popular in our nation, especially to followers of Ronald
Reagan’s foreign policy, which called for their overthrow.
195
17Chap16 179-197_19 195 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Though this goal took place, the Sandanistas still exist and
are still trying to get power back in that nation.
In a very subtle way, Bradley linked Gore to this group with

that suffix. This tactic unfairly links the Vice-President to a
group he had nothing to do with. This sort of attack fits in
line with Egocentric thinking, since it is calculated to lower
the popularity of an opponent for no valid reason.
Conclusion
No matter what the candidates say or do, we must re-
member that we have the power to shape the future of
this nation. Our candidates can only present their own
vision of that future. We are free to accept or reject what
we hear. We determine whether the candidates continue
to deliver their messages by voting on them.
We do not have to accept a politician’s refusal to answer

questions that we believe are important in shaping the
future as “just politics.” We can and should make our
displeasure clear by refusing to vote for that politician.
We do not have to listen to candidates who tell us we can

have something without paying for it. From the days of
the Revolution, we have gotten what we have wanted as
a people only through sacrifice. Fortunately, we do not
have to risk sacrificing our lives for freedom. However,
we cannot possibly make any changes like keeping down
the cost of tuition for secondary public education, increas-
ing the number of people on health insurance or increas-
ing environmental protections against toxic dumping with-
196
17Chap16 179-197_19 196 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

out sacrifices like higher taxes.
We must be on the alert when candidates for president

start to talk about their agenda or their policies. What
doesn’t add up economically before the election will not
add up after the election, either. We need to act to pre-
vent these candidates from gaining office while we have
the chance, as voters.
We do not have to believe that character assassination,

mudslinging and other forms of personal attacks are what
politics ought to be. It is true that our history may be
replete with these types of tactics. Indeed, opponents of
Thomas Jefferson called him a “filthy little atheist,”
Lincoln’s detractors called him a “dictator” and some
jeered Theodore Roosevelt as a “cowboy.” This may be
a part of our history, but it need not be a part of our future.
We must vote against these attacks on candidates by vot-
ing against those who make them.
Gone are the days that voters first identify candidates as

“liberal” or “conservative” or “Democrat” or “Republi-
can.” Now we must determine whether a given candi-
date for president is an “Egocentrist” or an “Altruist.”
Our future will depend upon this distinction.
197
17Chap16 179-197_19 197 6/9/05, 6:18 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
198
18Chap17 198-210_13 198 6/9/05, 6:20 AM

17 George W. Bush: Egocentric or Altruist?
George W. Bush:
Egocentric
or Altruist?
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
ow will President George W. Bush fare in his new
H role? We already have the answer. We can judge

the new president by the type of campaign he
waged to win the White House. We can also ana-
lyze the voters’ message to the candidates who
competed, particularly Republican Bush and
Democrat Al Gore.
In historical elections, like Abraham Lincoln’s win in

1860, the voters focused on a few issues in order to make
their decision. They pondered the importance of keeping
the union together and the morality of slavery.
By choosing Lincoln, even with less than forty percent of

the vote, they made his victory mean something because
of the way he defined the issues. Lincoln said, “If I could
save the Union by freeing all slaves, I would do so; if I
could save the Union by freeing half the slaves, I would
do so; if I could save the Union by freeing none of the
slaves, I would do so.” By specifically assigning the per-
manence of the nation a higher priority than ending sla-
very, he devised a plan as a candidate that he could carry
out as President.
199
18Chap17 198-210_13 199 6/9/05, 6:20 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
What the voters can foresee now with President Bush

should be evident from the campaign. Voters identified
health care, taxes, gun control, abortion rights, education,
trade, campaign finance, and other issues, but the candi-
dates failed to dwell on any of them in detail. Certainly,
some of the fault for this failure rests with the candidates.
But until voters find common ground with one another
about what matters most, we are relegated to a lack of
consensus and a lack of leadership.
Bush’s Primary Campaign

Both Bush and Gore had competition for their respective
party’s nominations. Bush faced a challenge from Sena-
tor John McCain of Arizona. McCain won the New
Hampshire primary largely on his appeal to independent
voters (who are allowed to vote in that state’s partisan
primaries). He emphasized concern for campaign finance
reform, especially in terms of abolishing “soft money”
contributions.
Bush had the support of the vast majority of Republicans

in Congress despite the fact that he was a governor and
McCain had served in the Senate since 1987. In fact,
some in the media believed there had been a “whisper
campaign” among Senate leaders to discredit McCain and
his supposedly bad temper. Most of them opposed his
ideas on campaign finance reform, as evidenced by his
bill’s (the “McCain-Feingold”) annual failure to receive
enough votes to pass.
200
18Chap17 198-210_13 200 6/9/05, 6:20 AM

George W. Bush: Egocentric or Altruist?
Whom did Bush rely upon to get back into the race after
the debacle in New Hampshire? He first turned to Bob
Jones University in South Carolina, site of the next pri-
maries. The founder of this university supported racial
segregation and made several anti-Catholic remarks. In
recent times, the university had a policy forbidding bi-
racial dating. Yet Bush, who knew or who should have
known about Bob Jones University’s history of bigotry,
went to speak there, anyway.
Bush also gave no answer when asked about his feelings

towards the state’s flag, which includes the Confederate
symbol. He also had no ideas about whether the flag
should have been removed from the state capitol grounds.
Even though the president has no control over a state’s
actions in non-federal matters, Bush refusal to take posi-
tions showed a reluctance to offend a group of voters, the
far right wing of the Republican Party.
Bush suffered another upset at the hands of McCain in

Michigan. Even with the endorsement of the state’s popu-
lar governor, John Engler, he could not convince the vot-
ers that his brand of “compassionate conservatism” was
what they needed. Shortly after the loss, he adopted one
of McCain’s key phrases, “reform” by calling himself a
“reformer with results.”
Both McCain and Bush traded insults over the next few
weeks of the campaign. McCain accused Bush’s cam-
paign of scare tactics in telephoning voters, a charge that
yielded no proof. For his part, Bush ran commercials
201
18Chap17 198-210_13 201 6/9/05, 6:20 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
falsely implying that McCain did not care about breast

cancer, an especially obnoxious charge given that his sis-
ter, Sandy, had suffered from it. Neither one demonstrated
a consistent ability to discuss issues.
On March 7, 2000, the Republicans effectively chose their

candidate for President. George W. Bush won every one
of his party’s primaries that day to give him a mathemati-
cal lock on the number of delegates needed for nomina-
tion. Most of the primaries awarded delegates only for
votes cast by Republican voters.
McCain’s Choice
The question asked by many voters and the media was: would
John McCain endorse him? At first, McCain went to his
home in Arizona to take some time off. Two choices pre-
sented themselves: re-join the same Republican colleagues
in Congress who refused to support his candidacy or con-
tinue his emphasis on campaign finance reform.
The former option, while it likely repulsed him person-

ally, was the easier road to take politically. He could go
back to the Senate, make up with the GOP leadership and
rank-and-file, and think about 2004 if Bush were to falter
in November. There was even the chance that if Bush
won, he would name McCain to a cabinet position.
On the other hand, a failure to support Bush would likely

cost him Republican support for any future endeavors.
But if there was anything proven by McCain in his cam-
paign, it was that his real support was not with the dyed-
202
18Chap17 198-210_13 202 6/9/05, 6:20 AM

in-the-wool Republicans, but instead with independents

and some Democrats who believed he was committed to
changing the way in which we fund our campaigns.
Eventually, McCain decided to endorse Bush and return

to the Senate. From a man who inspired many voters
with his “straight talk” and who routinely questioned
Bush’s experience for the presidency, his decision met
with disappointment. Unlike his candidacy, in which he
asked for a sacrifice from the voters (especially in his call
for campaign finance reform), his behavior after his can-
didacy ended showed he would sacrifice his ideas to con-
tinue his career.
Gore’s Primary Campaign

Al Gore faced only one significant opponent, former Sena-
tor Bill Bradley. The two held similar views on most issues,
with differences occurring not in goals, but in the method
goals would be reached. For example, both wanted to sub-
stantially increase the number of people covered by health
care. Bradley wanted to use Medicare while Gore wanted a
program that would fund care for all children.
This lack of policy difference set the stage for exchanges

on other matters, few of which had to do with policy. Al
Gore, seeing Bradley’s rise in both the polls and contri-
butions, decided to spring a surprise on Bradley on Larry
King Live. He extended his hand and told Bradley they
should both halt television commercials in favor of weekly
debates for the rest of the primaries. Bradley responded
“that’s a nice hand, Al” but refused the agreement.
203
18Chap17 198-210_13 203 6/9/05, 6:20 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
At one point, Bradley led the New Hampshire primary

polls. Some of his popularity may have come about
through his support for campaign finance reform and his
unprecedented campaign meeting with Republican John
McCain in which the two discussed the issue. However,
on primary day, Gore bested Bradley by a slender margin.
The two then battled in several states after that point, but
Bradley never found his footing. Gore defeated him in
each of the twenty-two primaries they faced one another,
enabling Gore to claim his party’s nomination easily.
The Republican Convention

As they did not occupy the White House, the Republicans
went first in holding its convention in the summer of 2000.
A group of delegates, excited about its party’s first serious
chance to win the presidency in twelve years, gathered in
Philadelphia to nominate George W. Bush for President
and Richard (“Dick”) Cheney for Vice-President.
The party clearly turned over a new leaf from its previous
conventions. Relegated to the watching booths were party
leaders like Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, House
Majority Leader Dick Armey, and House Assistant Ma-
jority Leader Tom DeLay. In their places were promi-
nent black Republicans like Colin Powell, emerging new
faces like George P. Bush (handsome, articulate and a
Latino), and Laura Bush, wife of the presidential candi-
date. Many commentators couldn’t help but compare the
convention to a basketball game, where “white people
watched, and the blacks performed.” In any event, the
204
18Chap17 198-210_13 204 6/9/05, 6:20 AM

“feel-good” atmosphere of Philadelphia lifted Bush and

Cheney to a large lead over the Vice-President.
The Democratic Convention

A few days before the Democrats convened in Los Angeles,
Al Gore gambled by choosing Joseph Lieberman to be his
running mate. By choosing Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew
with outspoken convictions about faith, he risked alienating
the non-religious voters. Lieberman would also be unable
to campaign on Saturdays in observance of his beliefs.
Furthermore, it was Lieberman who had criticized Presi-

dent Clinton publicly and sharply after Clinton admitted
to his sexual improprieties with Monica Lewinsky. Gore
risked the Republicans using that speech and other state-
ments against the Democratic ticket.
Gore’s acceptance speech was eclipsed by his memorable

kiss with his wife, Tipper, just beforehand. Polls after the
convention showed a Gore surge in the polls, especially
among women. Like the Republicans and their display
of women and non-whites on the stage, the Democrats
managed to place its image before its substance.
Bush vs. Gore: the Campaign

Gore started off by announcing a campaign finance re-
form plan, which, among other things, forbid “soft money”
contributions, or contributions by corporations to the po-
litical parties. Bush responded by scoffing at the sugges-
tion by attacking Gore for a controversial fundraiser that
Gore had participated in some years before.
205
18Chap17 198-210_13 205 6/9/05, 6:20 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Believing the New York Times had written of him unfairly,

Bush made a crude comment to Cheney about a specific
writer during a break at a campaign stop. Unbeknownst
to the two, a microphone caught the comment, which was
then displayed nationwide on televisions and newspapers.
The two candidates disagreed about when and where de-

bates would be held. Gore wanted to use the Commis-
sion on Presidential Debates’ recommendations of three
presidential debates and one vice-presidential. Bush
wanted more debates and wanted all of them in the man-
ner frequently used by Larry King and others in which
the candidates sit at the same table as the moderator. Af-
ter polls showed more agreed with Gore’s approach, Bush
settled for a compromise: he would only have three de-
bates but one would be in the “Larry King” style.
In what would become the tone for the rest of the cam-
paign, voters had different reactions to the debates split
along party lines. Democrats believed Gore answered the
questions more thoroughly than Bush, while Republicans
pointed to Gore’s sighs during Bush responses and inter-
ruptions of the moderator as reasons to believe that Bush
won. Members of both parties agreed that Cheney and
Lieberman staged a thoughtful debate, in which both can-
didates responded politely to the others comments. A few
voters even suggestion changing the order of the tickets.
After the debates, talk of specifics on issues gave way to

the mantras of “I will fight for you against the special
interests” from Gore and “I will uphold honor and dig-
206
18Chap17 198-210_13 206 6/9/05, 6:20 AM

nity in the White House” from Bush. Gore attacked Bush’s

tax cuts as favoring the wealthy and warned that Bush’s
economic plans would take the United States into a re-
cession. Bush questioned Gore’s honesty and made ref-
erences to Clinton’s conduct.
These mantras came to a halt just a few days before the elec-
tion when news reports disclosed that Bush had, twenty-
four years earlier at the age of 30, been arrested and pled
guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol. Up until the
election itself, Bush and his team pointed the finger at Gore
(with no proof) for releasing the information. Gore simply
refused comment and continued his mantras.
The Nader Factor

Ralph Nader claimed the Green Party nomination over
the summer and vowed a competitive campaign. He made
it clear his goal was not to win. Instead, he aimed to
receive at least five percent of the vote, the amount needed
for the party to receive federal matching funds.
Nader received only 3% of the total vote but did his best
in states that have an especially high concern for envi-
ronmental matters, like Oregon and Washington. Many
Democrats believed that he took votes away from Al Gore,
who had a strong following of environmentalists. Some
went as far as to say “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush”
or that a vote for Nader was “wasted.”
I offer a solution also set forth by public interest groups

like the Center for Voting and Democracy. It is called
207
18Chap17 198-210_13 207 6/9/05, 6:20 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and is detailed in chapter 12.

This type of voting allows voters to vote for several can-
didates in order of preference. In the event that no candi-
date received a majority of the “first choice” votes, bal-
lots of second and even third choices would decide the
election.
So, a Nader supporter using IRV could vote for Ralph

Nader as their first choice. They could then indicate Al
Gore as their second choice. Using the results from the
state of New Hampshire, in which Bush received 48% of
the vote, Gore 47% and Nader 4%, the supporters of
Nader, by casting a second ballot, would give either Gore
or Bush an undisputed majority of the vote.
Adoption of Instant Runoff Voting would end a problem

that has plagued political elections for years. Neither main
party candidate would ever feel threatened, as Democrats
in 2000 did, about a third party candidacy. On the same
token, third party candidates would be able to present their
ideas and not fear the perception of “spoiling” the elec-
tion for any other candidate.
Election Day Fiasco

Election Day 2000 provided everything for the political
observer except an answer to the question: who is the next
president? News stations twice incorrectly called the state
of Florida, once for each candidate. Bush scolded the
media for prematurely giving that state and others to Gore.
Gore lost his home state of Tennessee and the home state
of President Clinton, Arkansas. Bush won several states
208
18Chap17 198-210_13 208 6/9/05, 6:20 AM

that Bob Dole failed to win in 1996. At the end of the

long night, Gore called Bush to congratulate him, then
had to “take back” his concession a short time later.
Was the media at fault – or was it the voters? In state

after state, the margin of victory by one candidate over
the other was in the low single digits, sometimes just a
fraction of a percent. The United States Senate looked
equally divided and the House of Representatives was in
GOP hands by a dozen members out of 435. By provid-
ing a complete lack of consensus, the voters have given
our next president nothing to work with in terms of be-
ginning their governance. One person who predicted, a
psychic, had it right: “The winner will be the loser and
the loser will be the winner.”
The month-long battle over the recount of votes in the

state of Florida once again demonstrated the great divi-
sions among the voters. Those who voted for Gore were
most likely to support the recount of selected counties
while Bush supporters disagreed with the need for one,
saying the votes had been counted. Disagreements over
whether a chad attached to a ballot in two corners suf-
ficed as a vote or not added fuel to the fiery debate.
In one of the controversy’s few acts of statesmanship, Gore

offered to settle the matter once and for all with a recount
of all counties in the state with standards agreed upon by
both campaigns. Bush rejected Gore’s proposal and tri-
als and appeals in both state and federal courts continued.
In the end, after a divided United States Supreme Court
209
18Chap17 198-210_13 209 6/9/05, 6:20 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
gave its decision in a case appropriately titled Bush v. Gore,

the recounts stopped and Al Gore conceded victory to Bush.
The United States voters will never know the truth about
the election of 2000. We may very well have put the wrong
person in the White House. But in such a dispute, the
aftermath runs deeper and new truths emerge. Our na-
tion must devise voting systems that function consistently
and accurately. We must put partisanship aside when it
comes to counting the votes. And, we must settle for noth-
ing less than the truth from our leaders about what they
plan to do on our behalf.
210
18Chap17 198-210_13 210 6/9/05, 6:20 AM

18 Where Are They Now?
Where Are
They Now?
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
J
ohn Anderson spends nine months out of the
year as the President and CEO of the World
Federalist Association in Washington, DC and
three months as a professor of Constitutional
Law at Nova Southeast University in Fort Lau-
derdale, Florida. He also presides over the Center for
Voting and Democracy, a non-profit organization com-
mitted to reforming campaign laws.
John has no regrets from running his campaign in 1980.

Running as an independent allowed him an opportunity
to present his belief that what the United States truly needs
is “policy based on common sense.” The message must
have rung true: many people the author spoke to about
the Anderson Campaign proudly told him that their very
first vote was for John Anderson.
Many supporters from that campaign, plus a few who were

not old enough to remember it, gathered together via the
Internet to form “Draft Anderson for President.” Led by
Daniel Johnson-Weinberger (National Coordinator for the
Center for Voting and Democracy), this group pressed
211
19Chap18 211-214_4 211 6/9/05, 6:21 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
for Anderson’s nomination by the Reform Party by con-

tacting newspapers, writing articles for the Internet and
soliciting pledges for contributions. With the disarray in
the Reform Party, John decided not to seek the nomina-
tion and instead made commentary in the media from time
to time about the race. He eventually endorsed Ralph
Nader in the 2000 Election.
Michael Dukakis
He spends most of his year at Northeastern University
teaching political science. During the winter months, he
serves as a guest public policy professor at the University
of California at Los Angeles. He is also the vice-presi-
dent of Amtrak and frequently discusses the virtues of
public transportation.
Mike, despite his bitter loss to George Bush in the 1988

presidential election, does not blame other people for it.
He takes full responsibility for not responding sooner to
Bush’s attacks and presenting a solid case to the voters as
to why they should have voted for him.
During the 2000 Campaign, he endorsed and cam-

paigned for Al Gore, particularly during the all-impor-
tant New Hampshire Primary. He frequently appeared
on television political talk shows to discuss his thoughts
about the election. Mike also made an appearance at
the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles in the sum-
mer of 2000.
212
19Chap18 211-214_4 212 6/9/05, 6:21 AM

Where Are They Now?
Jerry Brown
He serves as the Mayor of Oakland, California. Despite
his abandonment of the Democratic Party in favor of in-
dependent status, he endorsed Al Gore for President.
The author is grateful to John and Mike for their time and
contributions of ideas to this book. He could not reach
Mayor Brown for his input.
213
19Chap18 211-214_4 213 6/9/05, 6:21 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
214
19Chap18 211-214_4 214 6/9/05, 6:21 AM

Biography / Web Sites / Index
Biography,
Web Sites
and Index
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
D
ean Hartwell has followed presidential elections
closely since 1980. At the age of 12, he knew
his candidate was John Anderson over incum-
bent President Jimmy Carter and Former Cali-
fornia Governor Ronald Reagan. His decision
to support Anderson made him unpopular among his sev-
enth-grade classmates. It would not be the last time his po-
litical leanings got him in trouble with others.
Hartwell suffered through the Reagan Administration, both

for its policies and for its leader. Watching Reagan push
through tax cuts that favored the wealthy and that increased
the nation’s debt was bad enough. But watching the de-
meanor of the president, who always seemed to be joking
around instead of taking his job seriously, was too much.
But the Democrats, whom Hartwell officially joined as a

registered voter in 1986 upon his eighteenth birthday,
could never stop Ronald Reagan. Twice he had won for
Governor of California and twice he won for President.
He tried his hand as a volunteer for Michael Dukakis’ bid
for President in 1988, first in the California primary and
215
20BM 215-224_10 215 6/9/05, 6:22 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
later in the general election. Hartwell enjoyed talking to

voters and made calls fast (as many as 40 calls per hour).
Dukakis took on Reagan’s Vice-President, George Bush.

At first the campaign looked promising; some polls sug-
gested in July 1988 that Dukakis had a lead as big as sev-
enteen points. Then Bush struck with commercials that
all but called Dukakis unpatriotic and unconcerned about
crime. Hartwell thought for sure the voters would see
past the scare tactics and elect the candidate more capable
of leading in an ethical manner.
But he was wrong. Bush won the election handily, making

Hartwell wonder if scaring the voters with half-truths and
falsehoods was the new definition of leadership. Even more
disturbing was the transformation that candidate Bush went
through in becoming president. The issues he campaigned
on most frequently, the pledge of allegiance and the criminal
furlough program, were nowhere to be found after Election
Night. If that weren’t enough, the intellectually challenged
Dan Quayle, who once said he didn’t “live in this century”
would now be the Vice-President.
Not long after the election, Hartwell received his Bach-

elor of Arts in Political Science from the University of
California at Irvine. He took some time off from school,
then attended California State University of Long Beach
where he received his master’s degree in May 1993.
In 1992, after an unsuccessful attempt to become a Jerry

Brown delegate to the Democratic National Convention,
216
20BM 215-224_10 216 6/9/05, 6:22 AM

Hartwell joined the Bill Clinton campaign. Though he

did not agree with Clinton’s support for the death penalty
and other ideas, he wanted to knock Bush out of the White
House badly enough to come on board.
Clinton’s primary campaign against Brown and others

spoke little of sacrifice (ex: middle class tax cuts) and too
much of attacking opponents, issues Hartwell had come
to realize were important in assessing a presidential can-
didate. He watched the fall election closely and saw a
Clinton concerned about health care coverage and into
criticizing ideas rather than people (he told President Bush
he was “wrong to attack his patriotism,” for example).
In retrospect, our nation received two Bill Clintons: the

one who adamantly denied involvement with “that
woman, Ms. Lewinsky” and the one who campaigned with
passion for gun control, against the tobacco lobby and for
health care. What if we knew ahead of time what we
were getting into? Given the importance of the presi-
dency in our society, how to obtain this knowledge
sounded like a topic worthy of a book to Hartwell.
Hartwell lives in Glendale with his wife, Lori, and their

four pets: an African Gray parrot, a cat and two dogs.
217
20BM 215-224_10 217 6/9/05, 6:22 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
Web Sites
http://www.destinationdemocracy.org
Benton Foundation Site that analyzes the pros and cons
of various campaign finance reform proposals.
http://www.fairvote.org/
Center for Voting and Democracy Site that has articles
in detail about Instant Runoff Voting, Redistricting, Vot-
ing Rights, etc. The site is frequently updated and gives
the latest in the Center’s attempts to reform the voting
process. The Center for Voting and Democracy is a non-
profit organization presided over by John B. Anderson,
one of the candidates in this book. It is located in Takoma
Park, Maryland just outside of our nation’s capitol.
http://www.fec.gov/
Federal Election Commission Site that serves as a re-
source for campaign finance laws. Also known as the
FEC, the commission is the leading federal agency for
federal election matters. Most states have a similar agency
for state election matters.
http://www.wfa.org/
World Federalist Association Site that describes efforts
to make “World Peace through World Law.” Anderson
serves as the President and CEO of the association, which
is a non-profit organization based in Washington, DC.
Among their campaigns to promote international justice
are the establishment of an international criminal court,
prevention of the use of child soldiers, and a rapid de-
ployment of UN force.
218
20BM 215-224_10 218 6/9/05, 6:22 AM

Sources Used
• Anderson-Reagan Debate September 21, 1980.
• Bisnow, Mark. Diary of a Dark Horse: The 1980 Anderson

Presidential Campaign. Southern Illinois University Press,
Carbondale, IL, 1983.
• Center for Voting and Democracy. “Instant Runoff Voting

(IRV) - A Fairer Way to Conduct Single-Winner Elections.”
• Destination Democracy/Benton Foundation. “Limits on Spending.”
• Historical Tables, 2000 President’s Budget.
• Meehan, Mary; Policy Analysis C253 - Federal Election

Commission, November 1, 1980.
• Solomon, Normon. “The Performance Art of American

Politics.”
• United States Census Bureau, “Changes in Median House-

hold Income” February 3, 1999.
• Various Jerry Brown Position Papers from San Francisco

Headquarters, 1992.
• Vij, Manish. Hum Magazine, “Professional’s Corner,”

Summer 1994.
Supreme Court Decisions by Citation

424 U.S. 1 (1976) – These are the citation numbers for the Buckley
v Valeo United States Supreme Court decision. This decision al-
lowed restrictions on contributions to candidates for federal office
as long as they work “against the reality or appearance of im-
proper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on
large campaign contributions” and allow for “effective advocacy.”
161 F.3d 519 – These are the citation numbers for Nixon v.
Shrink Missouri Government Political Action Committee which
in 2000 upheld the Buckley decision.
219
20BM 215-224_10 219 6/9/05, 6:22 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
INDEX
A
Abortion, 121
Anderson, John B., 18, 19, 34, 35, 113, 114, 153, 161, 176, 211
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) ballot, 150, 152,
and 2000 election, 156, 208
Atwater, Lee, 54
B
Bradley, Bill, 179, 194, 195, 203
Brown, Edmund G. “Jerry,” 63, 176, 213
Buchanan, Pat, 109
Buckley v Valeo, 133
Bush v Gore, 210
Bush, George Herbert Walker, 18, 46, 100, 119, 167, 169
involvement Iran-Contra, 49
tax pledge, 52
Bush, George Walker, 189, 192, 199, 200, 205
C
Carter, Jimmy, 17, 19, 99
Casey, Bob, 122
Clinton, Bill, 100, 120, 122, 168, 171, 173
Contribution limits, 110, 181
D
Death penalty, 126
Debates - Anderson-Reagan, 22, Brown-Clinton, 65
Dole, Bob, 100
Drug policy, 183
Dukakis, Michael, 45, 57, 100, 119, 176, 212
220
20BM 215-224_10 220 6/9/05, 6:22 AM

E
Entitlements, 187
F
Flowers, Gennifer, 66
Forbes, Steve, 189-190
Ford, Gerald, 85, 99
and Mayaguez incident, 85, 99
G
Gore, Albert, 179, 194, 195, 199, 203, 205
Gun control, 123
H
Hamm, Vincent, 163-164
Horton, Willie, 45
Hostages, 166
I
Income, median, 136
Inflation defined, 87
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) ballot, 150, 152
and 2000 election, 156, 208
Iran-Contra scandal, 48-49
K
Kennedy, Ted, 19
L
League of Women Voters, 23, 161
Libertarian Party, 105
Lincoln, Abraham, 38, 199
221
20BM 215-224_10 221 6/9/05, 6:22 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
M
Matching funds, 138
McCain, John, 179, 192, 200, 202-203
McGovern, 99
Misery index, 21
Mondale, Walter, 99, 177
N
Nader, Ralph, 158, 207, 212
National debt, 84
Nixon, Richard, 99
P
Perot, Ross, 75, 112
Political Action Committees (PAC), 131, 133
Q
Quayle, Dan, 51
R
Reagan, Ronald, 17, 26, 82, 99, 121,165,172, 175
Reform Party, 108
Roe v Wade, 94-95
Rogovin, Mitchell, 40
Roosevelt, Franklin, 38
222
20BM 215-224_10 222 6/9/05, 6:22 AM

S
Single-issue voters, 93
Slavery, 104
Soft money, 145, 180
Sound bites, 67-68
Soviet Union disbanded, 73
Stone, Oliver, 75
T
Tax, flat, 77, 189
Thomas, Clarence, 167-168
Trust of the voters, 67
Tsongas, Paul, 65, 177
U
Unemployment defined, 88
W
Wallace, 112, 114
Will, George, 30
Woman, Year of the, 74
223
20BM 215-224_10 223 6/9/05, 6:22 AM

TRUTH MATTERS
224
20BM 215-224_10 224 6/9/05, 6:22 AM

Truth Matters: How The Voters Can Take Back Their Nation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Truth Matters: How The Voters Can Take Back Their Nation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Truth Matters: How The Voters Can Take Back Their Nation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Truth

01FM 1-14_14 1 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or

Copyright 2001 by Dean T. Hartwell

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Library of Congress Control Number 2001088369

Includes bibliographic references and index.

First Edition — 2001

Second Edition-ebook — 2005

Printed and bound in the United States of America

Cover and interior design by Ernie and Patty Weckbaugh,

01FM 1-14_14 2 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

“Dean Hartwell’s book, Truth Matters, is an important and

“Truth Matters confirms our nation’s desperate need for

01FM 1-14_14 3 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

01FM 1-14_14 4 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

01FM 1-14_14 5 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

I dedicate this book to John Anderson, whose

01FM 1-14_14 6 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

1—Election of 1980: Something for Nothing 17

2—1980 Candidate of Altruism: John Anderson 35

3—Election of 1988: Flags and Furloughs 45

4—1988 Candidate of Altruism: Michael Dukakis 57

5—Election of 1992: It’s the Messenger, Stupid 63

6—1992 Candidate of Altruism: Jerry Brown 73

7—Reforming the Voters 81

8—Third Parties and Candidates 103

01FM 1-14_14 7 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

9—How the Egocentric Candidates Have

10—Campaign Finance Reform 131

11—Soft- Money Corruption 145

12—He Can’t Win, So Why Vote for Him? 151

14—Vincent Hamm 163

15—What We Have Learned in the Last

16—2000 Issues: How We Can Apply What

17—Special Edition: George W. Bush—

18—Where Are They Now? 211

Web Sites 218

Sources Used 219

01FM 1-14_14 8 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

This book would still be a dream in my mind were it not

Thanks to Ernie and Patty Weckbaugh, who showed me

Thanks to my parents, Carol and Ted Hartwell, who set

Thanks to my other proofreaders, my brother Paul

Thanks most of all to my wife Lori, who persuaded me

01FM 1-14_14 9 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

01FM 1-14_14 10 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

I wrote this book to recapture a magical moment of my

I knew who each of the three candidates were: The Presi-

After watching debates and reading newspaper clippings,

What puzzled me after the votes in the mock election were

01FM 1-14_14 11 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

My classmates were not alone in misunderstanding the

Over the years, I got involved with politics in many ways.

These activities were enjoyable but something was miss-

When a voice answered, it sounded familiar. Still I asked,

01FM 1-14_14 12 6/9/05, 5:33 AM

The conversation that transpired solidified a book I had