Whoa! You've grossly misunderstood us, Mr. and Mrs. America

By Joseph Walther

In the true spirit of an election year, I thought I’d try to clear up some of the terms that politicians like to throw around. Keep in mind, though, that it isn’t just the politicians who do this. The media, depending on its particular stance on a given issue, will either downplay these things or give them a life all their own.

But, always remember that without a gullible public, none of this nonsense would be possible. People hear what they want to hear no matter how much—or little—surface sense it makes. The key term here is “surface sense.” Here’s what I mean.

Way back in the dark ages of the ’80s—1980 to be precise—Ronald Reagan was in the midst of his campaign that led to his first term as President of the United States.

Whether you voted for the man or not is irrelevant now. Some of his campaign promises are relevant, though.

Virtually everywhere he went on the campaign stump, he said that he was going to do three things: reduce taxes, increase defense spending, and balance the federal budget. Millions of people heard these promises and took them literally.

Think about these things for a second. On the surface, he said that he was going to take in less money, spend more of it, and STILL balance the budget! People with 3-digit IQs knew that this was impossible.

Of course, there were many sub-surface conditions that had to occur first. Mr. Reagan knew this. However, as in the case of most elections, getting elected was—and still is—THE operational imperative; complete truth was—and still is—an option.

And, since gullibility was—and still is—such a strong force among the electorate, he chose the former, the same as any other politician. Ronald Reagan was not a liar; but he was both a great story-teller and THE consummate communicator.

We elected Mr. Reagan as our 40^th President. The rest is history. Love him or hate him as you see fit. The fact remains, however; in memoriam, he’s an icon to his supporters and a symbol of the devil incarnate to his enemies.

All politicians love buzzwords and power terms. One of the most popular, especially over the past fifteen- to twenty-years, has been “accountability.” They all promise this, as though they invented it.

It’s a vague term that’s implicative of the speaker’s higher virtues of honesty, as opposed to the status-quo of an opponent’s implied lack of virtues through some sort of terminal non-accountability.

The fact is, however, politicians—on average—do exceedingly well at “talking the talk,” but fail miserably at “walking the walk.” But, the successful ones are even better at something else: hiring spin masters.

Since they don’t seem to show a propensity for “accountability,” even when there are legitimate reasons to demonstrate it, they opt to pay good spin masters to “explain” things to the voters in ways that normal people never could, at least not with a straight face.

If you listen, even casually, to the political rhetoric that’s been going on for the past year or so, you will hear the incessant use of the term, “change.” Don’t take this stuff too seriously.

There is a big difference between what WE, the “people,” mean by change and what THEY, the “candidates,” mean by change. They’re as confident as ever that we, the “people,” can’t tell the difference.

We, the “people,” mean that we want a change in the beltway culture that has this country circling the drain of oblivion. We, the “people,” want “our” United States Congress to change, also, and begin to represent our, the “people’s” best interests, instead of those of the lobbyists on K-Street.

By “change,” they, the “candidates,” mean simple personnel changes. It will be business as usual but conducted by a different crowd of politicians, all of which have dubbed themselves, as being absolutely accountable to us, the “people.”

Here’s another thing. Lies have always existed in politics. The difference now is that there are more of them simply because we’ve permitted the definition of “is” to become relative.

Plus, today’s politicians are more adept at disguising lies as mere episodes of causal, but innocent, “misunderstandings” or at worst, “misstatements.”

Just in case we, the “people,” happen to understand what was said perfectly well, plan-B kicks in, changing “misunderstandings” to “misstatements.” Yes, both are powerful terms and all astute politicians must understand the difference between them.

The former are always the fault of us stupid-assed, misunderstanding voters. The latter are vague attempts at quasi-apologies from politicians. Under NO circumstances, though, should we ever interpret them as admissions of guilt.

As powerful as these terms are at covering a political liar’s butt, especially in the hands of competent spin masters, they pale in the mysterious glow of this one: “out of context.” This one is a truly versatile phrase that covers multiple, simultaneous sins.

For example, in addition to flat out lies, politicians say stupid, offensive things that not only defy constituent positions, but also violate every known tenet of human compassion, empathy, and common sense.

Here’s a gem from George H. W. Bush: “I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is a nation under God.”

His press secretary didn’t claim a “misstatement,” but rather that Mr. Bush had been, “quoted out of context.” He knew that the general electorate wouldn’t bother to check it.

The opposition media checked the context, though. Unfortunately, it didn’t matter because we don’t trust the media, especially those outlets that “pick” on OUR favorite politicians!

Honesty, charity, and empathy have never been contingent upon a belief in God. Even so, today’s political office seekers have elevated the term, “religious faith,” to the status of Divine Commandments.

Politicians who want to be elected, must find a way to include these buzz words as inherent in their political footprints.

And, it can’t be just any old faith, either. It has to be the “right” faith. It’s tolerable—at least here in America—for people to believe in those “other” gods, but OUR God, the Christian one, is the only one that counts.

At the national level, it used to be that Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Zoroastrians, and, MOST CERTAINLY, Atheists need not apply. But, since Kennedy’s election, Catholics seem to have been removed from the “dangerous” list.

Likewise, Jews, thanks to Joe Lieberman, also seem well on their way to a national upgrade from absolutely NEVER to “OK” under some circumstances. Mormons, via Mitt Romney, may also become eligible for a future upgrade. We’ll see.

As for members of those other faiths, they have two chances of being elected to a national office over the next couple of decades: slim and none.

Many politicians are lawyers. Please note, here. I used “lawyers,” not “attorneys at law.” Graduation from a legitimate law school earns the title: Lawyer. An attorney at law is a lawyer who has passed one or more state bar exams and is licensed to practice law.

So, why do I bring up the difference? It’s simple. Both are master obfuscators. And, for politicians, obfuscation is as vital to a success as oxygen is to the life-sustenance of every living being.

Even the most skilled obfuscators, screw up on occasion, though. This can be a death knoll for a politician. Substandard obfuscation could actually permit voters to understand just enough of what’s been said to know that it’s pure crap. Such screw-ups are tantamount to political felonies.

If this happens, the affected politicians have to make themselves “perfectly clear,” relative to their positions, at which point they raise the bar to formerly unheard of levels of obfuscation, or, if you prefer the more common term, bullshit.

Let me close this by stating MY firm stances on other well established positions and a realistic potential of ME changing my mind. Never let it be said that I am NOT perfectly clear on these matter.

When it comes to positions, missionary, in my estimation, is still the best. Also, I am a man of faith in that I firmly believe in prayerful thanksgiving. To me, this is what the doggy-style position is all about. And, screw any changes, too! My back just won’t permit them anymore.

But, as for the politicians in the upcoming general election, nothing will get our real desire for change across to them like unprecedented voter turn-out; throwing long-standing incumbents out of office; and electing who WE want to elect instead of who the media tells us that we want to elect. Let’s DO it.

See you all next week unless my back goes out.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.