The Truthiness of Government--A Paradox

I was thinking about a comment I made about Obama during my live blogging of the Democratic debate last night, and a thought occurred to me that there is an inherent paradox in the way many people like myself think. My original quote:

"8:20: Obama seems to be the leader of the main crowd--Gravel (who is he?) calls him out about Walter Reed--the correct thing to do. I believe Obama when he says he didn't visit the outpatient part of Walter Reade, but, big but, doesn't make him look like a leader." [Boldface mine]

Here's the paradox. I like Obama and it's been obvious from anyone who reads my blog that I support him. Thus, I trust Obama. After all it's pretty hard not to support someone who you don't trust. But, simultaneously, I don't trust government. This leads to a problem. Let me write out the possible syllogism:

a) Government is untrustworthy.

b) Obama is part of government.

c) Therefore, Obama is untrustworthy.

Two logical statements which leads to a logical conclusion which goes against what I want to believe about Obama. Of course, if that's the case then no one should even participate in the governmental process, and government falls apart. Yet I still believe in Obama, or want to believe in him. Thus how can this syllogism be solved? That's the question I pose to you. However, I have a few ideas how it can be solved.

In any syllogism a conclusion can only be reached when the givens are true. The second given, "Obama is part of government" is undeniable. So the only given that can be questioned is the first, and that's where the debate begins. Is the government "untrustworthy"? Well how does one begin to answer that? Past experience has shown that the government does, in fact, do things that are fraudulent, criminal, and dishonest. You need to look no farther than this current war, the suspension of Habus Corpus, et al. Of course you could say, 'well this is the Bush administration and it is an anomaly.' But that's a mistake. Clinton lied (Monica), Bush lied (read my lips), Regan lied (I didn't know about Iran-Contra), and so on and so on. And even if you don't believe that they purposefully lied, isn't an unpurposeful lie still a lie? Or is it a sign of incompetence?

Thus the best reconciliation I can make for all this is to say that the government displays the stark personality trait of "truthiness," to coin the Colbert term. It floats around in a "truth field": a miasma of what could possibly be the "truth" that "truth" being something that is, depending upon the situation, more "truthy" that others. If this is added into my syllogism I think we get something like this:

a) The Government is "Truthy"

b) Obama is part of government

c) Therefore Obama exhibits "Truthiness"

This is more fuzzy than my first syllogism but it actually feels more correct, and it seems to encompass more of the human condition. Politicians aren't necessarily liars, but, because of the very system the work in, lying is sometimes required (that is if you are to be successful--Gravel and Kuchinch and Paul probably won't get elected (or even considered) because that lack this very trait--they're too honest).

If this is true, then ironically, those of us in the population who do participate in the governmental process (vote, send their reps letters, and maybe even pay taxes), unconsciously want our leaders to have this element of truthiness, no matter how much we claim we want honesty. We want them to lie, but, and here's the kicker, only at the appropriate times. It's like a parent who just lost their job and their kids ask is everything going to be ok. The parent wants to say, "Hell no!" But their children want them to assuage their fears. A good parent does so, but a bad parent (or at least a bad parent at the time) is bluntly honest. A good politician understands that a lie at times can inspire hope, and squelch fears, while at other times a corrupt politician lies to mask their deceitfulness and incompetence.

Of course that fine line between the two is often crossed by a politician with the greatest of intentions, especially when the politician feels that the destiny of their country is wrapped up within them, forgetting that in the grand scheme of things they are ultimately expendable, a brilliant trait of the Constitution which spreads out power among three branches to insure the public against corruption and incompetence.

I feel like I've taken the long boat to China to arrive at this answer; but, as I said before, this feels correct. Please drop me a line and tell me what you think.