Words of Inaction

By Benjamin Mumma
This article appears in the October 2008 Edition of the Lehigh Patriot.
www.lehighpatriot.com

Election year politics always provide a tremendous amount of political banter on both sides. While following this year’s contest, I have read countless well-thought and articulate articles on the current political climate. By perusing many articles each day, representing both sides of our nation’s great left-right divide, I’ve discovered a lot about how politics really works. The insights that I’ve gained make it extremely challenging to write about any concrete political situation for several reasons. Thus far, I feel that I’ve found out a lot about how the U.S. political system currently works. In the media you’ll hear the party lines, the political commentary, and the candidate’s talking points. But that isn’t the analysis that matters. If you can see through all of the smokescreens politicians set up, there is one overarching theme: words don’t matter.

That words do not mean anything in politics isn’t a new theme, and I am hardly being original in pointing this out. For the sake of argument, let me give you two examples: abortion and the war in Iraq. Republicans are, by-and-large, against legal abortions. They, as well as the Democrats, love to use their pro- or anti- abortion stance as a talking point. But it has been 35 years since Roe v. Wade, and what has the Republican Party seriously done on a national level about making abortions illegal? Not much. For religious reasons, many Republicans feel that it is an imperative to produce pro-life candidates for national office. In the primaries, Mitt Romney did his best to adapt (flip-flop) his position on legalized abortion. Similarly many Democrats, such as Pennsylvania’s junior senator Bob Casey, have tapped the pro-life voting pool by being Democrats who support restrictions on abortion rights. Some politicians may actually care about whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned. But few will rank it as more important than staying in office, and even fewer will specifically devote political capital to the cause.

On the other side, there is the war in Iraq. War is inherently awful, and it is a sad statement of reality that even for a nation like ours, war is a necessity in some situations. Was the war in Iraq necessary? In hindsight, it probably was not. Those two facts have made the war extremely unpopular, and those on the left of the political spectrum were calling for us to withdraw from a nation we had just torn apart. Democratic politicians used this to their advantage and spoke out against the war in order to raise money and obtain votes. Did any of them actually want us to withdraw? The answer to that is ‘no’. Anyone who views the world minus the influence of mind-altering drugs realizes it would be very dangerous to just pick up and leave Iraq before it is stabilized. Barack Obama has altered his stance away from that extremist view he took in the primaries. He now effectively says the same thing as everyone else: let’s win the war and get our troops out as quickly as possible. Politicians will pay lip-service to their bases by favoring immediate withdrawal; but again they fail to devote any political capital to the cause.

The fact that political actions do not follow political verbiage makes analyzing political conversations extremely difficult. Analyzing their words is great if you want to produce a work of fiction, but that hardly makes it possible to discern their true motives, and that doesn’t work well if you want to find out what the politicians are actually going to do. But suggesting that Mr. or Mrs. Politician is insincere invites attacks from all across the political spectrum. Thus, the cable news networks, talk radio, and political commentators everywhere, mainly analyze a situation based on what politicians say. The media does this because it either pleases or aggravates every politically active person watching, which of course drives the ratings. Comments made every day by people like Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann purposefully highlight the divisive parts of the other side’s platform. This doesn’t provide rational analysis, but instead breeds angry comments and irrational responses.

Knowing that so many Republicans and Democrats will say whatever they need to in order to secure their popularity and office really diminishes partisan politics, and its analysis. I have attacked Democrats for supporting higher taxes on the rich simply to obtain the votes of the poor, and doing so at the peril of our economy and our country’s future. But what does that attack really mean if Republicans talk about limited government in order to obtain votes, and then either do nothing about or even aid the expansion of our awful bureaucracy at the peril of our economy and our country’s future?

The hypocrisy of both parties is astounding. Democrats have made huge political gains by victimizing, and offering to help, the poor by going after the rich. But right now Democrats are the only ones standing in the way of offshore drilling, which would provide relief for lower-income families who are paying a significant portion of their income in transportation costs. Republicans in office all talk about hating the bureaucracy in Washington and wanting to reduce it, but they haven’t done diddlysquat about it. The best analysis of the current situation of American politics isn’t necessarily exciting, or even controversial, and it is certainly not enough to fill up the schedule of 24-hour news channels.

Finally, playing these partisan games does nothing but sharpen the divide between the ideological bases. It produces a vicious cycle where the attacks become sharper and sharper, distracting everyone from the facts on which a decision should be based. This problem has gotten so severe that humane and even reasonably intelligent discourse of politics between conservatives and liberals has become almost non-existent. Commentators on each side have become more and more brutal in their attacks on the other point of view.

Each side blames the other not just for initiating the fight, but continuing it. In the campaign so far, McCain has used some pretty nasty and devious tactics against Barack Obama. Obama has done the exact same thing to McCain. Arguing over who started it is something six-year-olds do. Both have recognized that negative campaigning is effective, and so each has used negative tactics. Both sides now love to claim the other side is full of evil, intolerant, and stupid people. Lost in the rhetoric is the fact that we are all Americans, and we all want what is best for this country. There’s just a bit of a disagreement about the best route to take. MapQuest can only get you so far.[1]

So what does all this mean with respect to the election? Whoever is elected, Barack Obama or John McCain, will attempt to do what is best for the country, without giving up too many votes. It has been plain for months now that neither of these candidates are the mythical political beast who could care less about getting re-elected. But both candidates are Americans, and both candidates truly want what is best for this country. In deciding who to vote for we need to look for someone whose actions, not words, speak most strongly to a candidate who is able to serve Americans, and not his own political interests.

This year that man is a Republican. It won’t always be the case, but you don’t have to dig too deeply to find evidence that John McCain puts the collective good of America first. His time in the Vietnamese POW camp, and his refusal of early release speaks more strongly to his character and values than any combination of words can. For a full account of his story I encourage you to read Senator McCain’s first-hand account from U.S. News and World Report.[2] Also, McCain has opposed his party, and tried to actually pass meaningful legislation. McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, as well as the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, was co-sponsored by a prominent Democratic Senator. In both cases he angered his voting base, knowing that he would eventually have a presidential primary coming up where those bills would haunt him. But it speaks to a man that has his priorities straight as a public servant: America should come first.

Barack Obama on the other hand, has only tried to differentiate himself with words. His actions so far have been so innately and brilliantly political that he has been able to use words to create the impression that he is above politics. His entire political career up until this point has been playing to the extremist portion of his party from which he gets his support, money, and volunteers. His documented connections to Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers[3] show the people he will associate with for political gain. Also, his voting record in the Senate, which was ranked as the most liberal of anyone in 2007[4], shows how he has played to the Democrat’s enthusiastic base. Only now has he moderated his views, best seen as I mentioned earlier on Iraq but also in reference to energy, taxes, and foreign policy as he attempts to win over independents. He has done all of this extremely well, and has played the political game as well as anyone. He very well may have the character and a coherent set of values on the level of John McCain. But he has not proven this yet. And the president, above all, must be someone who can make the right choice even if it’s not the popular one.

So while considering the election this November, think about the character of the two candidates. They are both intelligent, they are both capable, and they both want what is best for this country. You may disagree with Senator McCain on some issues, but as I have proven, the candidates’ talking points matter very little. Remembering that the actual amount of meaningful legislation destined to be passed in the next four years will be very small, I hope that many of you can set aside your disagreements with McCain’s policies as I have, and vote for him in November. As the candidate who is best suited to step above politics, he is the person who America needs making the decisions that will surely have a profound impact on our future as a nation.

---

[1] MapQuest, http://www.mapquest.com/politicalunity

[2] “John McCain, Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account”. John McCain. U.S. News and World Report, May 1973. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html

[3] “Wright Connection”. Michael Barone. National Review Online, May 24^th, 2008. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU3MjJlNDgwNWNhODhmN2IwYWFjNzZmNGJiMzUwYTE

[4] “Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007”. Friel et al. National Journal, January 31^st, 2008. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Sanity Lost

By Benjamin Mumma
This article appears in the October 2008 Edition of the Lehigh Patriot.
www.lehighpatriot.com

Sometimes, convincing someone to cast their vote for you is quite challenging. I learned this in those intense middle school elections of simpler days now long past. If it weren’t for Sarah and her seemingly endless supply of Jolly Rancher lollipops things might be different. Those grape ones were so tasty! As I quickly learned, elections can be tricky business if you don’t have the required political or sugar capital.

Politicians have learned this too. Unlike myself though, they had sneaky solutions to the bombardment of proverbial Jolly Ranchers that they faced. Candy didn’t taste as good when it came from a pedophile, or a pervert, or a womanizer. This was the good old politics of the past. Today, due to those pesky reporters, mudslinging must at least have some basis in fact. Nonetheless, some of today’s “leaked” stories can carry just as much bite as the politics of old.

Now you may not have many more elections ahead of you, but certainly you will be fighting for a wife or a husband, a job, a promotion, an apartment, or really anything else. And when you know you can’t beat your opponent based on your own merits, your best bet is to learn from the politicians. Here are the five lessons you can take to heart when considering how to defeat your opponent, tried and tested by politicians of every political party:

1. Your opponent has broken every one of the Ten Commandments.

Now-a-days, this attack probably wouldn’t even matter to the public. Other than number six, breaking the other nine commandments is basically cool. Stealing, adultery, false witness, coveting your neighbor’s spouse, and not keeping the Sabbath holy are all fairly common. But back in 1844 this was serious. James Polk’s campaign told voters that Henry Clay had indeed “broken everyone of the Ten Commandments,” and that “his debaucheries… [are] too disgusting to appear in public print.” Nevertheless, Clay still won 48 percent of the popular vote. The lesson: this probably isn’t the best way to attack your opponent – today this could be a net positive.

2. Your opponent is a pimp, or his mother is a prostitute.

These two attacks are obviously radically different, though a combination of the two would be rather disgusting. I digress. These political punches were actually counters to each other during the lovely campaign of 1828 between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. Jackson supporters accused Adams of “providing entertainment” for Russian Czar Alexander I, and later Adams supporters called Jackson’s mother “a common prostitute.” Jackson ended up winning 56 percent of the popular vote. The lesson: It’s better to be the son of a prostitute than to be a pimp.

3. Your opponent is a coward.

Franklin Pierce was a general during the Mexican-American war. Being from New Hampshire, he wasn’t used to the heat, and he collapsed from heat prostration during a battle. When it came time to run for President, Franklin Pierce was named “the Fainting General” by opponents. Even with that stigma on his name, he still won all but four states. Americans have since learned not to tolerate military cowardice, and did not elect John Kerry in 2004 after his bravery in the military was questioned by some of his fellow swift-boat veterans. The lesson: if you are going to join the U.S. armed forces, show no fear.

4. Your opponent is just ugly.

As could be expected in the turbulent years leading up to the Civil War, the North-South divide caused some heated discussion. As a Northerner, Abraham Lincoln wasn’t a favorite politician in the South. In fact, he won a majority of the electoral college without even being on the ballot in many southern states. It’s easy to understand why: according to the Houston Telegraph, he was the “most ungainly mass of legs and arms and hatchet face ever strung on a single frame”. The lesson: let your opponent’s ugliness work on its own, pointing it out won’t help you much.

5. Your opponent has an illegitimate child.

This rumor, about Senator McCain, was brought up during the Bush-McCain primaries in 2000. McCain’s daughter Bridget was actually adopted from an orphanage in Bangladesh by McCain and his wife Cindy. But by anonymous polling, the Bush campaign suggested that McCain was Bridget’s biological father. Bush then went on to win the Republican primary. Thankfully in the general election, Bush didn’t need such smear tactics: they just hid a couple thousand ballots from Floridians and then paid off the Supreme Court. The lesson: smear tactics are great, but bribes and sneaky cheating can be just as effective.

Sources:

“A Historical Perspective on Presidential Campaigns”. Dr. Ken Stevens, 2003. http://www.his.tcu.edu/Frog&Globe/SiteArchives/Stevens-Elections.htm

(Quotes used for examples of mudslinging 1-4 were from this document)

“The Anatomy of a Smear Campaign”. Richard Davis. The Boston Globe, March 21^st, 2004. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

(Information on example of mudslinging 5 were from this article)