Benjamin Boak Research Paper

The Reticent Politician
The word “reticence” is not a common word to hear in everyday life. The word “politician” while more commonly used, has received a bad reputation, at least in the United States, because it has been associated with power-hungry, manipulative public officials who value the progress of their agenda over their own integrity. Public officials, from Presidents to mayors, have been caught lying to the public within the U.S. liberal democracy, have tainted their own reputations, and have lost trust from the people they were elected to serve. By entering into a position of service to over 300 million people in the United States, political officials, especially those who serve at the federal level, should be held to a higher
Kennedy and Mayor John Lindsay, to support the belief that it is never morally permissible for elected officials in a liberal democracy to lie to the public. Bok says that the sum of our choices depend on the estimates we must conclude based on information gained from others. When we are unaware that the information given to us is false, our choices and the situation as we perceive it, are distorted. Furthermore, Bok explains that if we agree that knowledge gives power, then, to this extent, lies affect the distribution of power; “they add to that of the liar, and diminish that of the deceived” (19). This supports the idea that in a democracy, it is possible and likely, for an elected public official to gain political power as a result of lying to the public. In a liberal democracy, the purpose of elected government officials is to serve on behalf of the public who voted them into office. False statements to the public undermine the purpose of a liberal
In the case, we gather evidence from a case study called “Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments” by the Nelson Hall Series in Politics and Economics, in a particular case by Graham T. Allison and Lance E. Liebman, titled “Lying in Office.” The authors note that on the Sunday prior to election day, in a TV debate, Mario Procaccino, a conservative democrat who is running against the current mayor, John Lindsay, challenges the mayor in the accusation that he has been made aware of a secret report on housing in New York City. Procaccino claims that this report states that the rent control is the foundational housing problem in the city and recommends revisions that will increase rents on a mass-scale. Procaccino also claims that Liebman is aware that the report will be suppressed until after the election (41). Mayor Lindsay knows of such a report and has seen enough of it to know that the plans will lead to rent increases, and that the report will not be published until after the election. The case study tells us that Lindsay secretly supported the adoption of the report and then denied its existence and his approval of it to the public, twice. He promised to reject any such bill that may come before him as reelected Mayor. The case says that he does not want to lose votes or trust from the public because they disagree with his support for the bill, or his knowledge