Title: The Truth & Accountability Oath: A New Standard for Presidential Candidates
Introduction: Can Democracy Survive Without Truth? The time to address this pressing issue is now.
This post will engage in the Dialectic found between our desire to control misinformation and to protect free speech. There is tension, and we must be brave enough to recognize the interconnectedness and importance of both variables.
Too much control = oppression through censorship, a suffocating of creativity, and persecution of opposition to maintain power.
Too little control = decisions being made on incorrect information. Manipulation, loyalty, and idiocy drive policy.
Democracy is complex and though it is perhaps the best structure currently available, it has inherent flaws that need reflection. Democracy thrives on disagreement, debate, and passionate arguments about a nation’s direction and the values guiding us. But what happens when the foundation of that debate—truth itself—becomes optional? When politicians can lie without consequence and misinformation becomes widespread (advantageous or rewarded), the public loses trust in democratic institutions, the public is tricked into voting against their best interest/values, and nonsensical policies are implemented.
We have all spent years watching how misinformation shapes conversation and choice. I found myself beyond surprised that the systems we have in place do almost nothing to protect us from lies (as we the people donate to candidates I foolishly thought we would be protected by consumer protection laws = it is illegal to tell people that you are selling them a flying car if it cant fly – but a politician is free to say that they will solve traffic problems with flying cars though they don’t exist). We the People must develop a system that ensures that we have accurate information about what the politicians are ‘selling’. What if truth was an actual qualification for leadership? What if presidential candidates had to swear to tell the truth about key issues—under oath—before they could even get on the ballot annually, in conjunction with performance evaluation?
This isn’t about policing opinions, and it is not about restricting free speech. This is about creating a system that ensures that the people are informed in their decisions – without correct information there is no democracy. Further accountability already exists in almost all other aspects of our society. When a CEO, university president, or department head is interviewing for a position, they must submit goals with measurable objectives. They are required to submit a peer validated blueprint for how they will achieve those plans (you can’t apply for a tech company and say “we are going to make a really great software – It is going to be better and make everyone happy – and it won’t even require power – it will produce power!)
Note from the author: I will make mistakes – it is doubtful my proposal is sufficient without input from others. This is a complicated issue, so please look for opportunities to improve this idea. If you have a critique, that is wonderful—please, see it as an opportunity to offer a solution, not simply as a platform to practice being a contrarian. We often feel emotionally overwhelmed in the face of coexisting opposites. Hence, we need to hold our leaders accountable for being courageous enough to do so (and we all can, as we wait for them to grow brave). Every benefit has a consequence, and every solution creates a problem… Humility and resilience – Wisdom and equanimity – can pull us out of the mess we are in.
The Proposal: Truth as a Requirement for Leadership
1. Presidential Candidates Must Swear to Truthfulness on Key Issues
Before being placed on the ballot, candidates will be required to complete a sworn deposition. A metric will be created by which a candidate may lose eligibility to run for a political position if they lack sufficient truthfulness and/or credibility for their proposed interventions. Questions could include.
- Objective Facts: As the head of the country, you must understand the basics of economics. What are the leading causes of inflation over the last decade? Please provide evidence of your claims.
- Policy-Based Claims: How will your tax plan benefit lower-income families?
- Statements About Past Actions: Have you ever attempted to overturn election results through illegal means? Your current position directly contradicts your previous position – please explain?
Candidates must swear under oath that their answers are truthful—just like in a court of law. And here’s the kicker: if they lie, they’re out – no legal penalty – they simply no longer qualify for the ballot.
A future post will discuss the importance of our leaders modeling dialectic maturity. This could be achieved by requiring all candidates to offer both their proposals’ benefits and consequences. The inability to do so would be seen as a deficit in critical thinking and emotional intelligence (both of which are of paramount importance to the job.)
2. Candidates Must Present Endorsed Policies with Evidence and Expert Support
- 1.) Policy with all relevant interventions (Increase transportation and Tourism in the West: build a commuter train between Denver and LA).
- 2.) Evidence for intervention (e.g., This same intervention increased commerce and tourism in ________. A preliminary estimate is that it will cost ______________________, etc.
- 3.) the potential benefits and consequences of this are _______________.
- 4.) We will measure success by tracking the following variables.
Before being placed on the ballot, candidates must present their endorsed proposals and policies on the most pressing national issues, including: economic policy, healthcare, national security, environmental stewardship, education, spending cuts, tax policy, housing, transportation, infrastructure, foreign policy, and social justice. This ensures that voters have a good understanding of each candidate’s stance, and proposed interventions, on critical issues.
Candidates will be held accountable for these policies, and any contradictions between their sworn statements and previous public positions must be explained. Policies must be backed by empirical evidence and include an honest disclosure of benefits and potential consequences.
Additionally, endorsed policies should ideally be developed in consultation with or derived from established think tanks and subject-matter experts. For example, foreign policy proposals should be informed by foreign policy scholars, tax policies should be reviewed by economic experts, and education policies should be based on research from education specialists (references must be provided). This ensures that candidates present clear proposals and that their policies are grounded in credible expertise.
Of course, diverse opinions must be integrated into policies to address polarization and bias. For example, in deciding environmental policy, we would require input from resource management, energy experts, conservationists, preservationists, sociologists, and representatives from the physical sciences (such as biologists).
3. Enforcement: How It Would Work
To keep this fair and nonpartisan, an independent ethics panel, a panel of topic experts (e.g., an economic panel, an education panel, etc.), and Artificial intelligence would oversee the process.
How would it be enforced?
• Sworn Depositions Before a Truth & Ethics Panel – Candidates would publicly answer a list of pre-determined factual questions under oath.
• Automatic Disqualification for Proven Lies – If clear, verifiable evidence shows a candidate knowingly lied under oath, they would forfeit their candidacy. No “I misspoke.” No “alternative facts.” Just consequences. If the lies are only detected after a person takes office, they would either lose the ability for re-election or be reviewed for dismissal depending on the gravity of the infraction.
• Limited Scope to Protect Free Speech – Candidates could still express opinions, beliefs, and policy intentions. Still, provable falsehoods (e.g., “crime is at an all-time high” when crime rates are historically low) would be subject to accountability. Additionally, the public would be informed of all opinions being presented as fact. For example, if the candidate said “my predecessor left me with a horrible economy.” They would be required to prove it and held responsible for their inability to do so.
• Empirical Justification for Policy Proposals – Any candidate presenting a policy-based claim (e.g., “Trickle-down economics benefits the middle class”) must provide credible empirical evidence. The claim would be flagged for review if the evidence is weak, misleading, or non-existent.
• Fact-Checking Safeguard – A team of nonpartisan fact-checkers would analyze policy-related claims and compare them against established research, economic data, and historical precedents. Candidates could still advocate for controversial or unconventional policies but must acknowledge when their claims contradict available data.
• Job Performance Review & Accountability Standards – Candidates must clearly outline the specific measurable outcomes they promise to achieve during their term. For example, suppose a candidate claims they will lower inflation. In that case, they must state (1) how they will accomplish it and (2) how their success will be evaluated (e.g., by reducing inflation below a defined threshold within a specific timeframe). If they fail to meet these self-imposed standards, restrictions would be placed on their eligibility for re-election.
- Accountability for Contradictory Statements – If a candidate’s deposition statements contradict previously recorded statements or positions, they must explain the discrepancy. If their explanation is insufficient or deceptive, the panel can flag the inconsistency for further scrutiny. This ensures that politicians cannot simply rewrite their past positions when it becomes politically convenient.
- An algorithm would need to be created to deduce what constitutes enough “lying” to warrant a disqualification from being on the ballot. Either way, the populace would have access to a score card indicating honesty levels.
3. The Gray Area: When Truth Is Unclear
Not all political claims fit neatly into “true” or “false” categories. Some statements fall into a gray area because they are based on speculation, belief, or ambiguous evidence. To address this, political statements would be categorized into three discernment categories:
• True – Statements supported by verifiable facts and evidence.
• False – Statements disproven by precise, objective data.
• Not Measurable – Claims that cannot be definitively proven or disproven at the time of the statement.
- Pseudo-science – Statement that inherently can never be proven or disproven.
Within the Not Measurable category, there are further distinctions:
- Ample Evidence Supporting the Possibility – Statements that lack definitive proof but are strongly supported by existing research or trends (e.g., “Investing in renewable energy will create millions of new jobs”—there is strong evidence to suggest this, though exact numbers may vary).
- No Evidence Either Way – Statements that are speculative with no supporting or contradicting data (e.g., “colonizing other planets will be great for small businesses”—there is no current evidence to confirm or deny this claim).
- Ample Evidence to the Contrary – Statements that go against the weight of existing evidence but cannot be outright disproven (e.g., “Tariffs will help bring down the cost of eggs”—economic models and historical data strongly suggest otherwise, but complex market variables prevent absolute certainty).
Candidates making Not Measurable claims would be required to:
• Acknowledge the level of uncertainty in their statements.
• Provide supporting evidence if available.
• Commit to transparency in assessing outcomes if elected.
This ensures that politicians can still discuss visionary ideas and controversial policies while being transparent about what is grounded in fact and what is speculative.
Additionally, a threshold can be implemented requiring each politician to present at least one measurable proposal per meta category (education, taxation, medical, etc.)
Why This Is Necessary
• Prevents Public Manipulation—Politicians shouldn’t be able to deceive voters with outright falsehoods and face zero consequences. For example, it is illegal to sell a car as working if it does not have an engine, and it is unlawful to cause hysteria by yelling “fire” in a movie theater if there is no fire. Politicians should not be able to emotionally manipulate the populace to attain power. Not only does this interrupt the democratic process, it also creates collective mental health concerns such as anxiety, rigid thinking, and over-reactivity.
• Reduces Post-Election Backtracking – Many politicians campaign on promises they later disown. This process would force them to stand by their claims and add a mechanism of evaluation and consequence for not doing so. Again – this mechanism exists in every single business operating in our country.
• Restores Public Trust in Leadership – Citizens can engage in fact-based debate rather than misinformation wars if candidates operate under sworn accountability.
• Elevates Political Discourse with Evidence-Based Governance—If leaders provide actual evidence for their claims, campaign debates will shift from baseless rhetoric to fact-based policy discussions.
If truth is too high a price to pay for power, then maybe that power isn’t legitimate in the first place.
A Future Blog will discuss the positive systemic impact of ensuring our leaders symbolize our values and priorities.
Conclusion: Truth as a Qualification for Leadership
Democracy cannot function on deception. Politicians should not be on the Ballot if they need to lie to win.
This proposal doesn’t restrict speech—it demands accountability. It asks for the bare minimum from those who seek to lead a nation: tell the truth when it matters most. This ensures that the same safeguards in the private sector are implemented in our political structure.
If we had accurate information presented by wise critical thinkers with high emotional intelligence, the population would have to grow towards a new challenge: we would have to grow in using our democracy to short through the tension inherent in the fact that every solution will have a consequence. Currently, we are arguing over ambiguous positions. We will need to grow in our resilience to face the reality that taking a position requires us to own, and hold compassion for, a corresponding consequence.
So here’s the real question: Do we accept that lying is part of the game, or do we demand better?
Democracy is only as strong as the truth it stands on. If that truth crumbles, so does the system itself.
Call to Action: If you believe in a democracy built on truth, share this proposal. Demand that our leaders be held accountable—not just by voters, but by the principles that define justice and governance.
