That is an interesting question because many people might be tempted to say NO, judging by their experience of politics and the number of politicians who have lost credibility trying to deliver that truth and have been found wanting. The stark fact is that truth does exist in politics, but it is often lost along the way for one main reason: politics operate on two levels - INTENTION and REALITY - and truth is often lurking somewhere between them, which makes it difficult to find.
Every politician starts out with the intention of being truthful. They are often guided by ideals of truth, by principles that enable truth and the determination to deliver their truth. In fact, it seems that the goal of every politician, especially the new ones, is to ensure that voters recognise their singular commitment to truth in office. Fine so far. Except that reality has a way if intruding at some point and obscuring that truth, due to the fact that it is very difficult to ever please a large number of people, no matter how truthful one is, because of the myriad of vested interests that prevent that truth from prevailing. It is no easy task pleasing a few people, let alone millions, especially when voters are so diverse in needs, desires, aspirations and allegiances and are keen to protect their interests.
It seems that truth in politics will depend on three things:
1. How many voters align with a politician's truth, find it relevant to them and their needs,
2. How many voters accept that truth as possible and have the faith in the politician to deliver the truth for them.
2. The capacity of the politician, once in office, to match 'truthful' promises to the realty of governing, and to bring that truth to life for all to see.
New politicians, in particular, are at the mercy of enabling their truth after they are elected because their inexperienced perception of what they can do in office is often at odds with what they can actually achieve when elected. This is the time when the vast chasm between intention and reality becomes really obvious. Unfortunately, they find that out only too late when reality kicks in.
For example, if the resources are not there for action, the red tape is tying them in knots, and too many power brokers prefer the status quo, they gradually realise that they have to prioritise delivery according to the greatest influence and degree of support they will have. This means many people will be disappointed. Soon the voters get disillusioned as their aspirations (their personal truths and reasons for voting) fall by the wayside, while the politicians begin to feel impotent too, lose their enthusiasm and settle into the status quo. Everything then appears superficial and expedient to the voters, a 'truth' obviously designed to get the politician elected.
President Obama, for example, seems to be at the mercy of the truth in his intention being scuppered by the reality of his situation; one that is dominated by vested interests, differing expectations across the country, differing perceptions of what should be priority and powerful forces guarding the status quo. Worst of all, to the obstructionist policies of his opponents who have refused to accept defeat. His truth has been hostage to those factors making it very difficult to bring his intentions to fruition.
It seems that truth in politics operates at the lowest, local level where only a few people share the desire and expectation around that truth. In these local situations truth has a better chance of being visible as everyone will be working closer together to enable its reality. Once millions of people are involved, they become more detached from the action, and too many 'truths' vie for position, truth in politics then beomes more difficult to achieve. Not because politicians are not telling the truth, per se, but because the version of the truth they are trying to convey will be sabotaged by the reality of the numerous unforeseen obstacles barring that truth from being delivered to millions of disparate expectations. A near impossible task, with so many voters to convince of their intention when the ensuing reality suggests something entirely different.
