Saturday, September 1, 2012

The Casualty of the 2012 Election Campaign is the Truth

US Senator Hiram Johnson once said, "The first casualty when war comes is truth."

He was right, of course. And it is telling on another respect, too. Here in the United States, where we are obsessed with war, and war toys and machines, and war propaganda and military parades and speeches that echo war campaigns, we seem unable to separate ourselves from this concept of war. War is everywhere you look around you. We are fighting literal wars, of course, in Afghanistan, in Iraq and, arguably, in Libya. We seem to debate the possibility of war in Syria and Iran. With the concept that has become the flavor of the moment for those who want to grasp at the lofty notion known as "American exceptionalism", the strong possibility of war, that is to say of enforcing our will through superior military force, is very real. In the United States, war is ever present.

So much is it present, in fact, that we declare war on other things, as well. We have a so-called "war on drugs". We wage war on other unsavory aspects within our society, as well, and so declare war on poverty, on illiteracy. In some sports, particularly in American football, we use warlike language. The players are known as "troops", and they are "down there" in the "trenches". In fact, many of the terms used in American football reflect this obsession with war. Everything from "blitz" to "touchdown" to "aerial assault" to "long bomb" to "take down", and probably a number of other phrases that are escaping me right at the moment. It is probably not the only sport that does this, but it is the one that most closely pretends to reflect real conflict, even though it is merely a game.

We use war like language regularly, as well. The term "mission accomplished" and "operation" are regularly used, and often, even businesses follow the narrow focus of the military mindset, which is to say, not allowing any distractions in order to accomplish one's ends.

Since we cannot separate this notion of war from so many other aspects of our society, is it really any wonder that politics also seems to reflect war?

There is another saying that goes, "All's fair in love and war". These days, when we look at the political campaign in this year of 2012, going to all lengths in order to accomplish one's end (of winning the election) has become virtually an art form.

The reputation for politicians, of course, has never been favorable. For a very long, long time, they have been distrusted as liars and mere opportunists, willing to do anything in order to get elected, in order to attain power and access. That is understood. Just look at some old quotes from Mark Twain, and a number of others, to serve as an illustration of this point (as well as to put a smile on your face).

That said, it appears we seem to be hitting new lows, even by the already low standards of politicians. Modern day American politics indeed does seem to have war like aspects to it, with systematic character assassination tactics that leave virtually no one unscathed. We are urged, essentially, to hate the candidates, especially the one that does not agree with our line of thinking. And we wonder why we are more polarized than ever before?

But I digress. Politics has always been a dirty business. There's a reason that it's called mudslinging. As bad as it has been throughout history, it always seems worse in the present day, but there is some evidence that this is not mere illusion, but in fact, is worse than it has ever been. Because these days, outright lies and falsehoods seem to be the accepted and expected norm. Even when the truth is spoken, you can almost guarantee that it is not the truth entire, that some crucial element to the story is being left out. Whether we like it or not, this is the simple truth, in this day and age.

I am of the belief that what politicians don't say is often more important than what they do say. 

Last week, there was the Republican National Convention, at Tampa Bay. Everyone there was in complete agreement that President Obama has been a disaster, and that the country needs to change course, needs to get new leadership and a new direction. They say that the last four years have been an absolute disaster, that there is a complete lack of leadership at the White House, and that the country simply cannot afford four more years, quite literally.

All of that is fine and well, except that, again, it's not the full story. The Republicans accuse Obama of blaming his predecessor, George W. Bush, for everything. Yet, they themselves blame Obama for everything.

Now, I am not the biggest fan of Obama, frankly. I did not vote for him in 2008, and thought that all of the attention that he received was mostly just hype. He did precious little in the last almost four years to change that impression, for that matter. But that said, the simple truth of the matter is that he did, indeed, inherit a complete disaster, as far as national circumstances are concerned. It was disastrous, and getting worse. It continued to get worse for the first few months of his Presidency, during the so-called honeymoon period. Things began to stabilize in time, but it indeed took time, as it was months later. The economy began a weak recovery that was not exactly to anyone's liking. But it was a recovery, a moderate growth. Romney stressed in his acceptance speech that Obama shared the dubious distinction with Jimmy Carter, the notion that he could not say that Americans were better off four years after he first assumed office. That may be true, but again, those first few months were largely the negative momentum from the preceding administration. of that much. Obama is right on that score. Yet, the Republicans remained almost entirely silent on that point, which is something that they have consistently done for the last four years.

Yet, this is only part of the story. Because another thing that they did not mention was their own role in blocking Obama at every turn. This was particularly true during the speech of Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan. He mentions that Obama set up a budgetary committee to provide him advice, and that they gave it, and Obama responded by doing "exactly nothing", according to Ryan. What he does not tell you is that he himself not only chaired this committee, but was opposed to what it came up with, which was the crucial deciding point for Republicans in general, who went with Ryan's opinion that it would not work, and that they would not carry the motion through. Obama could not take the committee's recommendations if he had wanted to, largely because of Ryan's opposition.

The same could be said of Ryan's hammering home the point that American had enjoyed a perfect AAA credit rating going into the administration, but had been downgraded during Obama's years at the helm. What he does not tell you is that he and the Republicans were instrumental in setting this crisis up in the first place, both by policies (less taxes for the rich, particularly), and by tactics. When Standard & Poor's stated the reasons for this, they seemed to place the blame more on Republicans than Democrats, since it had been the Republicans who had waited to try and make the President nervous. The report from Standard and Poor's suggested that all of this was a political game, that the credit rating was being used as a political football.

It is said in the report that "America's governance and policy-making becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy." More people polled tend to blame the Republicans for this near crisis, than the Democrats.

Ryan also mentioned that the best chance to protect Medicare is by voting for the Republican ticket, although in his own budgetary proposals, he essentially was going to take more money away from it than Obama did.

It is not the only thing that the Romney/Ryan ticket claim about Obama that does not mesh with the facts. They claim that President Obama is trying to dismantle the work requirements for welfare recipients, which is simply untrue.

President Obama could have tried to remain above the fray himself, but he has not. He asserts that Romney is opposed to all abortions, even in the case of rape or incest. While Romney is opposed to abortions, he does make exceptions, including those ones that Obama is claiming that he does not make.

All of these claims have been proven to be patently false, yet both campaigns still go ahead and say whatever they want.

Such political doublespeak! To hell with the facts!

But they get away with it. Obviously they do, because if they did not, then they would not do it. It's that simple. And more than ever, the facts seem to be overly flexible, and without a spine, the way that they are used merely for political gain. Until those who tell the lies are held accountable by us, the voters, there really is no reason to expect any changes. Why would there be?

From my perspective, Obama is hardly a great President. I did not believe in him in 2008, and still don't believe in him. But if the Republicans want to gain the White House, it would be nice if they could do so by being serious about the state of the nation, without resorting to outright lies or mere half truths. the same with Obama. But the very problem with American politics in this day and age is that we want to believe the lies, and so, it has become a de facto truth that if you repeat a lie often enough, it does in fact become the truth, at least among the ignorant American voting population. Until we ourselves grow up and get serious and start holding our elected officials, and those who are running for public office, accountable, than nothing will change.

What a sad state of affairs! But we have to ask ourselves, do we truly deserve better? Romney and the Republicans claim that Americans deserve better, deserve more. But frankly, until we take a more serious and, frankly, adult approach towards this, then it's hard to believe that we do, in fact, deserve better.

Below is a link to the main article that I used in this piece, by Michael Cooper of the New York Times. The article is called "Facts Take a  Beating in Acceptance Speeches", and here is the link. I recommend reading this one, for sure!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/ryans-speech-contained-a-litany-of-falsehoods.html?bl

No comments:

Post a Comment