Politial Taqiya

Some political issues have short lives. Some tend to linger, or pop up from time to time before fading to the background. Some are timeless, seemingly never resolved to the point where the players and partisans accept that an outcome has evolved. Among those is the issue of gun ownership in the United States. There are ebbs and flows, and while most of the success in recent years has been enjoyed by the pro-gun-rights side, those who believe that restricting or banning private gun ownership is a good thing haven’t given up their fight.

Every high-profile shooting in the US sparks a renewed debate about gun control and gun rights. The budding presidential primary races have, however, added an extra element to what’s normally a whole lot of bloviating, a whole lot of back-and-forth in the press and on blogs, and little actual change in legislation. Presidential candidates, especially on the Democratic side, are finding that they have to take positions and make statements.

Recently, Hillary Clinton was asked what she thought about a program in Australia that confiscated 650,000 privately owned guns in Australia via a buy back program. Her response:

I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged…

Her campaign promptly walked that statement back, with affirmations that Clinton supports private ownership of arms, and that all she wants is “common sense” regulation that the public supposedly supports.

Many of us who support gun rights don’t believe for a moment that Hillary’s true belief is the latter rather than the former. The same goes for countless other liberal politicians who profess support for the Second Amendment but lament that simple, common sense measures can’t be even considered because of the NRA’s extremist views on gun rights. Set aside dissection of this bit of political pap for the moment, and consider what’s really going on. Many liberal voters want guns banned in this country. Some of them will tell you so, but many others will, without a moment’s hesitation, lie about it. Oftentimes, they do so with some degree of contempt and sometimes with various condescensions, e.g. Don’t worry (pat on the head), no one’s looking to take your guns away.

They expect that their favored politicians think similarly.

Hillary Clinton has plenty of quotes where she declares her support for the right to bear arms, and they’ll be cited by her supporters when someone observes that she’s likely to be a gun-grabber as President, but some of her supporters don’t actually believe she’d be content with a few added restrictions or another assault weapons ban. It is expected that she’ll say what she has to in order to get elected, then do things that stray from or even flatly contradict what she said and promised on the campaign trail. It is fully expected (or at least ardently hoped), by some, that Hillary the President would move strongly against gun ownership and that all her words about individuals’ rights would be cast aside.

This phenomenon, this lie to the fools on the other side in order to get elected – don’t worry, we know what you’re really about and we support you, is by no means unique to Hillary Clinton. History is awash in successful politicians who achieved their success because voters thought thus. Many voters and candidate loyalists have not only accepted that their preferred politicians are liars, they encourage the lies. It’s a phenomenon that exists on both sides of the party divide, and it seems so common that we are actually surprised when a candidate sticks to his professed principles or promises. Some practitioners are more brazen than others, of course, but even those who we believe have stronger principles than the typical politician have their moments of misdirection on touchy issues.

This lie to get elected scheme poses a puzzling question: How do a candidate’s supporters actually know what their preferred liar is going to do once elected? What prompts them to trust Liar A over Liar B?

Islam has a principle, called taqiya, that permits a believer to lie about his faith or to commit blasphemy if the believer is at risk of persecution of harm, or in order to protect another believer from persecution or harm. We can transfer this principle to politics by making two presumptions – that the “persecution or harm” stricture be loosened enough to include “victory,” and that political allegiance is viewed as a religious equivalent.

These two presumptions are problematic. It is understandable and productive for a religion to have a safety provision i.e. to allow an adherent to lie rather than face death for professing his beliefs, but expanding that provision merely for purposes of political victory seems rather less moral. It is also questionable to equate political party preference with religious adherence. Religions have clear rules and dogma, especially when compared to the shifting platforms and nebulous ideologies of political parties, and there’s rarely confusion as to what one believes when he or she avers belief in a particular religion. It’s not quite as clear when it comes to political parties. Although there are certainly probabilities involved i.e. we expect that Democrats are more likely to favor restrictions on private gun ownership than Republicans are, there have been pro-gun Democrats and anti-gun Republicans.

Many voters, nevertheless, embrace this political form of taqiya despite these problems. They’ll expect their preferred candidate to lie in order to get elected without knowing that the candidate actually adheres to a particular political dogma. In other words, they don’t know what their candidate actually believes or intends to do, but they support that candidate anyway, and they want their candidate to lie in order to win. They presume that their candidate actually wants Y even if he or she says X, and while there’s usually enough to assume certain leanings, history offers countless examples of politicians disappointing their supporters.

Nevertheless, the acceptance of lying persists. Politicians love this. The tribal/religious allegiance to political parties exhibited by a majority of voters and the rarity with which those voters turn their backs on their tribes/religions/parties gives politicians enormous latitude. Winning has been divorced from performing, and in that divorce winning has come out way ahead. Voters want their candidates to win, to do what it takes to win, and THEN hope that the dreams and visions they’ve projected onto those candidates are fulfilled. They’re usually disappointed.

Sadly, that disappointment rarely seems to become a lesson learned. Rather than grow angry and demand accountability (i.e. vote the bums out), voters rationalize away the lies with justifications that include “everyone does it,” the other side is worse, our people would be doing what we expect if it weren’t for the obstructionists on the other side, and so forth. These rationalizations serve only to reinforce the principle of political taqiya, giving politicians plenty of reason to continue to lie and little reason to honor their words.

Then there is the flip side i.e. those who presume the candidate on the other side is lying. These are the people who are probably right, who fully expect that said candidate will not do what he or she promised, who will pursue agendas and policies that he or she has specifically disavowed, and who will receive accolades from his or her supporters for having lied to everyone. Unfortunately, it’s all too common that those who presume the other side is lying fall into the same trap as the other side’s true believers i.e. they support their own liars (and end up disappointed, as well). The antidote to this, taking a principled stance against ALL liars, is a tough road with poor prospects. When tribalism is the norm, when lying to achieve victory is both acceptable and a winning strategy, standing on principle is likely to leave one standing alone.

What’s the antidote to political taqiya? I’m not sure there is one, at least not in the short term or with high probability for success. Those of us who recognize it and haven’t married ourselves to one party for better or worse are a minority, more likely to be cast aside as irrelevant come election time than to be courted by demonstrations of principle and honesty. Additionally, the classic problem of “subversion from within” is at play. Even if many voters would rather accept a principled loss than a liar’s victory, those who are less scrupulous will take advantage of the principled in order to achieve their goals. The fight is certainly an uphill one, with limited chance for success. The alternative, however, is to accept lies and disappointment, to participate in the steady decline of the principle of representative government. We can delude ourselves into thinking that supporting “our side,” that accepting political taqiya if it means our team wins the big game, will benefit us. It might, it might not, but make no mistake, political taqiya is the decline of representation. When politicians can lie about their plans and intents not only with impunity, but at the urging of voters, they cease to be our representatives and instead become our overlords.