Would you vote for a politician who says “I don’t know” often?

[Chazmatazz269]

It’s likely that one of the reasons politicians appear to be so completely incompetent or untrustworthy is because they refuse to admit when they don’t know what they’re talking about. This isn’t unusual. Most people struggle with that to some extent. But most people don’t have other people’s lives and livelihoods in their hands every day. It seems like the more important a person’s job is, the less likely we are willing to accept “I don’t know” from that person. If that phrase is the start of a learning curve though, maybe we should change how we feel about it. It certainly offers more opportunities than the lies and gaffs with which we have become accustomed.
Would YOU vote for a politician who says “I don’t know” often?

[NamerOfStars]

Back in 1974, the chairman of the Ways and Means committee (and consequently one of the most powerful people in the country) was a guy named Wilbur Mills. In 1974, the police spotted his car driving WAY too fast one night, especially considering that it was 2 AM and its lights were off. The police stopped him, and inside the car was Rep. Mills, drunk as a skunk, and a woman who was definitely not his wife. She turned out be an Argentinian stripper named Fanne Fox, and upon being the car being stopped, she jumped out and leapt into the nearby Tidal Basin.

So you have all the makings of a major scandal, right? Natch. So what does Mills do? Does he set the standards for another sex-crazed Arkansas politician and deny everything? No- he goes to Boston and appears on stage with her. When the papers ask him why, he replies "I think what I did was right. Of course, I could be wrong.".

"Of course, I could be wrong".

Never since have those words been spoken in DC; I think we're long overdue. "I don't know" would also be nice.

[Chazmatazz269]

Actually, i believe Reagan said something similar. He might have been quoting, or jesting. Then again, who says Mills wasn’t.
I do believe that we’re long overdue for some honesty and humility though.

[MaazHussain]

In general, a politician who is honest about not knowing something and is willing to learn or seek advice can be seen as trustworthy and open to growth. It is important for a leader to be transparent and acknowledge when they lack knowledge on a particular issue rather than trying to bluff or pretend they know everything.

However, it is also important for a politician to have a basic understanding of the key issues and policies relevant to their role. A leader who constantly says "I don't know" may appear inexperienced or unprepared. It is a balance between admitting ignorance on certain topics and demonstrating competence and expertise on the core issues of their role.

Ultimately, the decision to vote for a politician who says "I don't know" often would depend on their overall track record, policies, and how they handle themselves when they do not know something.

[Chazmatazz269]

What frame of reference are you using? I’m older than you and i know of no politician in US history who used the term even once, let alone routinely enough to indicate inexperience or incompetence.

[MaazHussain]

As you said that you haven’t seen any politician in US history to use that word, but my opinion is not only based on US politicians. There are many politicians that I’ve seen from India and Pakistan have used these words sometimes in ignorance and sometimes they don’t know genuinely but are willing to learn about it.

[Chazmatazz269]

For real? That seems so far fetched from here! It must be nice!

[BCA6010]

It depends. I don't expect a politician who never served in any meaningful capacity in the military to actually have a clue how the military works, and would have more respect for them just admitting that than pretending to know, assuming of course that this candidate has expertise somewhere else that's relevant... but if someone is running for a position and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on basic concepts, then "I don't know" isn't acceptable. It should go without saying that someone with no relevant background in environmental conservation, law enforcement, energy, construction, etc shouldn't be appointed to positions in charge of those subjects.

[Chazmatazz269]

Are you among the minority who believes that the POTUS, as “Commander in Chief” SHOULD have military experience?

[BCA6010]

No. It doesn't hurt, but it also doesn't help much either, plus almost all of our presidents since The president is always going to be flanked by advisors with a combined total of several hundred years of experience, and the president's role regarding the military stretches basically nowhere past deciding who to invade. A veteran president basically contributes little more than being another voice in the room. In fact, even most of the pentagon, generals and admirals are leaders in name only, haven't been in direct command of anything in over a decade, are more politician than soldier, and getting ahold of the realities on the ground would require some closed doors time with someone no higher up the chain than a brigade commander. That said, I tend to scrutinize the crap out of anyone who runs with "military veteran" at the forefront of their campaign, because I've been there and done that too, and to be perfectly blunt- most grossly oversell themselves when looked into.

[Chazmatazz269]

Your justification of that point is diametrically opposed to the point you previously posted.

[BCA6010]

*presidents since anyone on here has been alive never really did much of note in the military anyway, with the exceptions of Kennedy and Bush senior.

[ShiftingMonke]

Frankly I would love that. I would love to see a politician hear a proposal and simply say "Yeah, I think that's bullshit." Or say "I've not heard of that, but let me look into it and get back to you." Or apologize to the constituents for voting for something and having it fail. Not blame the other side, but just admit "Yeah folks, I heard you, and it just wasn't in the cards. I'm sorry." I dunno, be a regular person? I'm of the mindset that if anyone desires a political position, then they're automatically disqualified; you should become a politician because you're sick of the potholes in your town and you fail upwards because you actually get things done instead of being funded by lobbyists that end up with your soul in their pocket. Blah. Rant over. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

[call_me_scar]

I would but as long as he follows it up with he'll ask his advisors then that's fine not everyone knows everything but the main thing is if he's corrupt or not. Of he's taking money to be taken specific stances then he's dead to me and nothing more than an obstacle I want pushed out of the way preferably into a 6 foot grave

[call_me_scar]

If* not of

[exitseven]

Nope, it means they are not prepared. I can understand somebody who does not know all the answers but to be maybe the Secretary of Energy for example you should at least know how many barrels of oil is used in America.

[AviatorTom]

I don't trust someone who always has an answer. Admitting they don't know something, and will try to learn about it... those are the people I trust the most.

[Guardian45]

I would vote for a politician who says “I don’t know, but I'll get back to you by xxxx" and DOES!

[Chazmatazz269]

Kept promises mean a lot!

[SnowedIn]

I would. Too often would be a turn off, but I want leaders to be honest with me. I want leaders who hire really smart people who get answers.

[DJB72]

I'd be more inclined to trust one who was prepared to admit they don't have all the answers.

[msc545]

Do you mean an honest politician? YES