The Worst Messengers

They're rewarded in today's politics.

Everyone knows the famous fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf — the story of a shepherd boy who, for his own amusement, repeatedly fools his fellow villagers into believing that a wolf is attacking the town’s flock of sheep. When a real wolf eventually shows up, no one believes the boy’s cries for help, and the wolf eats the sheep (in at least one version, the wolf even eats the boy).

The boy is a classic example of a bad messenger. If he had shown himself to be worthy of public trust — an individual of integrity — the villagers would have come to his aid, and killed or scared off the wolf. The sheep would have been spared, and the community would have been stronger because of it.

The moral of the story is clear: if you’ve established that you can’t be trusted, people aren’t going to believe you… even when you’re being truthful.

As a society, we generally understand the importance of integrity and honor. If a car salesman sells you a lemon, you’re not going to buy another car from them. If a lawn-care company kills your lawn, you’re not going to use their services in the future. If you discover that a job-applicant lied incessantly on their resume and in their interview, you’re not going to hire them.

But for some reason, when it comes to politicians and political-media figures (people with significantly more power and influence), millions of Americans simply don’t care about honesty, integrity, and intellectual consistency. In fact, they often view such traits as frivolous and even contemptible, being that they tend to get in the way of preferred political narratives.

Bernie Goldberg and I discussed this topic in this week’s No BS Zone. Though the conversation was tethered to interest in this website, we both (as stated) view the problem in much broader terms.

Simply put, we happen to think principles matter. We also think character and objective truth matter. But for many political consumers, all that matters is the message.

Is this person saying what I want them to say? Are they reliably defending people I like? Are they reliably attacking people I don’t like? Such consumers insist they want fairness (they may even believe they do), but what they really want is compliance, conformity, and yes — bias. Bias that aligns with their own, that is.

That’s not fairness. Fairness requires single standards, and acknowledging inconvenient facts and hypocrisy. Fairness requires telling people things they don’t necessarily want to hear.

I’m sure some readers are tired of me citing this famous Charles Krauthammer quote, but I think it — and Krauthammer’s legacy — are important:

You're betraying your whole life if you don't say what you think - and you don't say it honestly and bluntly.

When political consumers are only interested in messages that please them — being coddled and pandered to, and told that their inclinations and preconceptions are correct — what they’re asking for is betrayal. And as is to be expected in a capitalistic society, there are lots of unprincipled, disingenuous actors who are more than happy to supply that betrayal (typically in the pursuit of money and fame).

Bernie and I aren’t part of that crowd, and never will be. If that disappoints some readers and listeners, so be it.

Message-conformity creates lots of bad messengers in our political landscape — little boys who cry wolf. But unlike in the fable, they’re the ones increasingly listened to and rewarded for their efforts. That’s why there are so few Krauthammer-types sharing the news-media limelight these days, but a whole bunch of unprincipled, grievance-peddling hacks.

Does that frustrate us? Yes. Does it tempt us to change? No.

I’ll end this piece by thanking those of you (the bulk of our subscribers) who understand what we’re about, get what we’re doing, and appreciate that we respect you enough to be honest and candid with you. You mean a lot to us.