Political Schoolin' (Naught from Naught Is Naught..)

   This blog is primarily about politics and education, so I sometimes post about my own education in political science - which I write about in this post...
   Many friends know that I ran for the District 42 State House seat in the primary held on June 28, 2016. Since I consider myself a fiscal conservative (believe in saving taxpayer dollars instead of spending), a social conservative (belief in retaining traditional social institutions such as our public schools), and a Constitutional conservative (belief in complying with Constitutional Law, instead of violating it or changing it) - I ran as a republican. As all District 42 House voters know, I was taken to school and educated by my republican opponent Tim Downing, 1800 votes to 1000 votes in the primary. Even though my stint into politics was brief, I learned a lot, since my teacher (Mr. Downing) was starting with a blank slate as far as my ignorance of the political process. I learned several indisputable lessons that most politicians know quite well, but which I assumed were all wrong. I also wrongly assumed that what is ethical behavior in the real world is ethical everywhere, but what I learned is generally unethical behavior can be considered ethical by schooled politicians (I was not an educated politician). The lessons I've learned about ethical behavior before politics, has been turned upside down in some cases. The choice about ethical behavior is a personal decision and I admit that what is ethical for one individual may not be ethical for another. What I believe to be true, may not be true for another (politician). In other words, what most people believe to be unethical behavior, may be quite ethical for a politician. What I believe to be unethical is followed by what many politicians consider to be quite ethical (according to my teacher):
1) Unethical - Lies
2) Ethical - It's OK to lead people to believe a lie, if you simply make a true statement, but don't tell the whole truth. An example would be Tim Downing's statement "I believe in educational choice". What he wants his constituents to believe is that.. he believes parents should be able to access public school funding for "their choice" of private or corporate schools. What he really means is that he believes in "legislator's choice of sending public tax dollars to his choice of private or corporate schools. He wants the public to believe he is "conservative" concerning individual choice of schools, when he is really liberal for more government spending for corporations and private enterprise. It's called corporate welfare by most conservatives or corporatism.
1) Unethical - Half-lies and Innuendos
2) Ethical - It's OK to tell half-lies and make innuendos, as long as one doesn't tell whole lies. As an example, Mr.Downing responded to the question "Do you believe our public schools are top-heavy?", with "Yes, as an example, the (school) superintendents in Garvin and McClain Counties earn $1.5 million per year". While the statement is true, what he wants his listeners to believe is that school superintendents are "over-paid bureaucratic fat cats" and therefore, we should consolidate schools or administration. In his mind, he doesn't actually say what he wants the public to believe, so it's not a lie. In his mind, he only insinuates that "over-paid superintendents are fat-cats" so magically, the innuendo becomes ethical. A "truer" more ethical answer would be "I don't know - while the superintendents in Garvin and McClain Counties earn $1.5 million per year, it represents less than 1% of school expenditures, while Oklahoma State Legislators' pay ranks us 12th among all 50 states. So you must decide for yourself if Oklahoma public schools are top-heavy... or if the Oklahoma Legislature is top-heavy..."
1) Unethical - Embezzlement of campaign funds is both unethical and illegal
2) Ethical - As long as one doesn't get caught, there is NO victim in the crime, and can justify the misspent campaign funds, it's OK. For example, Senator Kyle Loveless (R) was accused of spending campaign funds (donations) for personal use (embezzlement) this year. He resigned from the Senate, plead guilty, paid back $112,000 to the State, and is on 3 years probation. He used the campaign funds for toys, flowers, clothing, auto tires, fast food, lingerie, OU-Texas football game, attorney fees, a speeding ticket, and a divorce.It is all perfectly legal to use donations to pay for "officeholder expenses", so Mr. Loveless could have assumed it was ethical to pay the speeding ticket with campaign funds, since he was probably traveling to a Senate function in some city. He also may have assumed it was ethical and legal to pay expenses related to the OU-Texas football game in Dallas, since he was probably campaigning for his seat - no doubt. It may be difficult to argue the legality and morality, however, of paying for lingerie and a massage with donations. Also, remember he was convicted of embezzling $112,000 in donations, so whose to say the "contributors" in question are upset with Mr. Loveless, so the crime may indeed be "victimless". So, is it really a crime? And if so, is it really unethical? What I'm referring to is that probably the bulk of the $112,000 was donated by out-of-state corporate contributors, and they would want Mr. Loveless to use their funding for personal living expenses. At least they probably knew he was, but didn't care. It's a safe bet that Mr. Loveless's constituents weren't wealthy enough to contribute $112,000.
   Tomorrow we will discuss what I learned about "How to Win Elections Without Hardly Cheatin' at All", a how-to book written by Martin Hauan. Mr. Haunan handled publicity and Advertising for many political campaigns beginning in 1954. I have a suggestion for a how-to-book written by the campaign adviser of Senator Loveless, Representative Downing, and Superintendent Hofmeister... It's called "How to Win Elections by Cheatin' and Gettin' Away With It".