In American politics, the truth is sometimes very difficult to find. And I’m not talking shades of truth, but TRUTH…period! There is one thing you can take to the bank when you listen to most politicians: In the course of any speech or press conference facts are going to be distorted, made up or twisted in some way. There is an old joke: “How can you tell when a politician is lying?” Answer: “His lips are moving.” Sadly, there is a lot of truth in that statement.
I have voted in every Presidential election since 1972. In my first few elections, I voted with very little knowledge of the issues, often voting based on gut reaction to the candidates. As I’ve grown older, I’ve tried to keep abreast of the issues and gather information on where the candidates stand on those issues. Even after reading newspapers, watching political shows on television and viewing political commercials, I still haven’t been fully informed at times.
In the 70s, 80s and 90s, political campaign literature filled mailboxes during election cycles. However, it was difficult to compare and contrast candidate’s positions on a given issue. When it came to finding voting records for incumbent candidates, you had to search far and wide. Such information was either not available, or I didn’t know where to find the it.
In the past 10 years or so, the main tactic chosen by candidates at all levels is to ridicule the positions or voting records of their opponents. In the case of those running for office for the first time, there was often a major effort to dig up some kind of dirt or scandal to tip the scales one way or another. It seems that position statements on the issues was either too much work, or too risky to undertake. Another favorite tactic is to create fear in people by portraying the other guy’s position in such a way as to threaten the well being of some segment of the population.
It hasn’t gotten any easier over the years to ferret out the truth about the various candidates. At least not without a healthy level of effort on the part of the voter. Even with a good effort, one still has to filter out the hyperbole and misinformation that is out there. It is especially dangerous to take information shared by friends and colleagues at face value. There are e-mails and chain letters showing up in everyone’s mailbox that purports to have some “fact” about almost every candidate running for public office that turns out to be partially true at best, and outright lies at worst.
One example that keeps making the rounds, despite being discounted numerous times is the e-mail that claims:
“Illinois senator Barak Obama is a ‘radical Muslim’ who ‘will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance.’”
One only has to visit Snopes.com to get information behind this inaccurate information about Senator Obama. But how many voters who have received this e-mail know where to go to check the information? How many would even take the time if they knew where to go?
On the other side of the aisle, there are examples of fable put forth as fact:
“John McCain declared during a 60 Minutes interview that he was a ‘war criminal’ who ‘bombed innocent women and children.’”
The question begs to be answered, why would Senator McCain make such a statement? What was the context of the statement, if was actually uttered at all?
On top of the blatant lies and attempts to intentionally mislead, there is also a tactic that is commonly used that attempts to sway people’s opinions by telling them the truth. As you sit there shaking your heads wondering if I’ve lost my mind, let me explain. The idea here is to accurately quote a candidate, but without giving the complete context of his statement. By leaving out either the question that was asked, or qualifying statements made before or after the words being quoted, a completely different meaning is implied.
Luckily, there are sources to check information being bandied about in the different campaigns. There is a web site maintained by The St. Petersburg Times, called Politifact.com that supplies information on different statements made by both the Democratic and Republican campaigns. There is also FactCheck.org, run by The Annenberg Public Policy Center, which provides a non-partisan analysis of campaign issued statements.
In one of my early blog posts, Politics as Usual, I urged people to take the time to research political candidates in order to make an informed decision before going to the polls. Since writing that post, I feel the tendency to try to mislead voters to gain support has become more the norm in American politics. I wish I had the power to do something about that, but sadly politicians just aren’t listening to the numerous American voters who say that they are tired of the smear campaigns and “dirty politics” that defines almost every American election.
If any politician reads this post, I implore you: Tell me where you stand on the issues. Period. Don’t tell me what your opponent believes, or how he voted in the past. I can look that up myself. Don’t tell me how much your opponent’s programs are going to cost, unless you are offering an alternative that also lists the costs. If you believe you have answers for the problems facing our country, share that information with me. If I am convinced they are the right answer, you’ll get my vote. Going forward, one sure way to guarantee that I’ll lose interest in your message is to go on the attack. If the best you can do is talk down your opponent, you probably don’t have a message worth listening to in the first place.
Best of The Rambler