Dishonesty is now an accepted weapon in the political arsenal. George Bush was elected on a promise to bring honor back to the White House. However, this was merely a stalking horse, like compassionate conservatism, crafted to conceal a reactionary agenda. A Rovian strategist can be hailed as brilliant instead of morally corrupt if the climate is right. The cycle of deception and lying reached its nadir with the Iraq war, leaving an opening for Sen. Obama, who sensed that the voting public had had its fill of run-of-the-mill dissimulation -- the kind that greases the wheels in Washington -- and felt extraordinary outrage as it hasn't since Watergate. His spectacular rise to the top bears out the accuracy of his instincts.

Many seasoned observers feel that his promise to reverse the cycle of lying and deception won't work, in stark contrast to Obama’s millions of grass-roots supporters. Their reasons for skepticism are impressive:

--Politics has become an elitist game that attracts almost entirely rich white males who stick together.
--Ideology cements the closed club of senators and congressmen, giving them more reason to protect their own.
--Lobbyists and special interests long ago bought their way into Congress, forming a phalanx of self-interest that outlasts any presidential cycle.
--The interests of the poor and ethnic minorities have been put on the back burner more or less permanently, so these groups must be fed with false promises to conceal the actual situation.
--Core support from the religious right demands a show of public piety from politicians whose actual religious convictions are mild to non-existent.
--Democracy has become a ritual enacted every four years, which consists of high-flown promises followed by business as usual after Inauguration Day.

Against this bulwark of inertia, what can Obama's style of moral persuasion accomplish? To the skeptical eye his idealism has a charismatic quality whose shelf life is likely to expire the day he takes the oath, if not long before. Hillary Clinton has tried to prick the bubble with every needle she can find, and the net result is that the public has gradually come to see a tarnished Galahad. Yet by a twist peculiar to national politics, the same public wants to see Obama get down and dirty, as proof that he isn't weak. He is caught in a double bind that closes in on anyone who tries to raise the moral level of discourse in a country addicted to gotcha politics.

Clearly we have reached a critical point in the cycle of lying, because Obama's appeal remains strong, and although he has been diverted into negative campaigning, his opponent has paid just as dearly, if not more so, in her negative ratings. Reverting to ugly fighting, in other words, isn't bringing the usual rewards. This seems to indicate that being honest and trustworthy represents what the public desperately craves. Obama has a good chance of emerging again in the summer as an idealist tempered by realism. Once the hunger for a dirty fight has passed, the electorate may wake up from its long tolerance of the intolerable to demand that Obama and the Democrats clean house, just as they promise to do. The good thing about reaching the trough in the cycle of lying is that the only way out is up.