I understand the government’s problem when it passes legislation in a fog of lies, misinformation, spin and deceit so think on both sides that nobody even pretends to know what the consequences will be. And it certainly is embarrassing when claim after claim about the legislation made by the House Speaker and President himself is shown to be untrue or mistaken after the fact: “Oops! The law won’t really be budget-neutral!” “Sorry! Many of you won’t be able to keep your health care plans after all!” “Darn! There really isn’t anything in here that will keep costs from rising!”

Gee, maybe they should have read the thing before voting for it.

Be that as it may, it does not justify the Obama Administration paying $700,000 in taxpayer funds to run TV ads showing avuncular old Andy Griffith, of Mayberry fame (Pssst! Andy used to specialize in playing con-men and scam artists before he and Don Knotts teamed up), telling seniors how peachy the new system will be. Putting aside the fact that what Andy says is objectively false (see Factcheck.org’s deconstruction here), it is also the kind of spot that we should expect of political parties but condemn when it comes from the government.

I know the Obama-ites are new at this national governing stuff, but even so, they should be able to understand that the ethical obligation of the Federal Government (“of the people, by the people…” well, look it up, guys!) to tell us exactly what the laws, proposed and passed, really do, including advantages and disadvantages, without obfuscation or manipulation, and allow us to decide, having all relevant facts, whether the law is a good one for the country (that’s the “for the people” part) or not. The Federal government has no business spending our money to mislead us with slick TV commercials, either about how wonderful a big, sloppy, irresponsible set of laws establishing a new bureaucracy that looks like it was designed by a mad scientist is, or about how infallible our One Great Leader is. The first is as unethical as the last, which we have, mercifully, not seen….yet. They are both examples of government propaganda of the sort practiced by authoritarian, anti-democratic regimes that must depend on deceiving the people rather than enlightening them. Andy’s ad (he was apparently not paid for it, by the way—which does not make the spot less ethically offensive) is an abuse of power, a breach of the duty of honesty, and a violation of the public trust.

What would be an ethical health care ad? That would be an ad—more of an infomercial, really—that explains the health care reform bill in a straightforward, honest, clear, non-partisan manner, so everyone, young and old, knows what to expect, how to plan for it, what to applaud, and what to jeer—and what they were lied to about, and by whom.

What’s that you say…that would be impossible? The bill’s too complicated to explain to the people whose lives will be affected by it? There’s nobody who can explain it?

Perhaps. That was what was unethical about the health care reform bill in the first place. It still doesn’t justify misleading the public about it now. The government is obligated to do the best job it can telling the public the truth, and then being willing to be held accountable.

Sending out Andy Griffith to tell seniors “I think you’re gonna like it!” isn’t good enough. It isn’t even close.