What candidates don’t tell you is the most important
Throughout the election season, people get used to the usual verbal tricks of the politicians — the hedging on issues, the facile promises, the misdirection and the empty slogans of the day, like being a “candidate of change.”
These devices generally fall into the category of simply telling people what they want to hear. Certainly committed supporters of a candidate, and those who are predisposed toward one, will filter out, minimize, or dismiss in their own minds any facts that are contradictory to their favorite’s position on any given issue. This is true of overall party positions as well.
Democrats want to downplay their murky stance on national security, for example, other than stating their systemic wish to withdraw all troops from Iraq and possibly Afghanistan as well. Since they cede this issue to be a Republican strength, they studiously avoid it during debate and stump speeches, other than repeat the mantra of withdrawal “at the earliest possible time.”
What this strategy avoids, of course, is having to discuss the serious threat this country and indeed all Western countries face now and in the future from jihadist Islam. Whether from political correctness, ignorance, or thinking the matter already settled, the absence of debate on this issue makes the Democratic presidential candidates look clueless, or merely wishfully thinking that the threat will go away on its own.
Worse, it gives the impression that, if elected, Democrats will simply do what they have always done — throw State Department diplomats and congressional emissaries at the problem and make further appeasements to Arab countries.
Although they do mention “Islamofascists” and “radical Islam,” Republican candidates merely use these terms without any focused discussion of the threat and what specifically they would do about it. Most of them still purvey the canard that jihadist Islam is somehow a distinct and separate issue for fanatics only, and not flowing from Islam ideology itself.
Instead of educating the American public about the serious risk this country faces, both parties have chosen to either ignore or downplay the uncomfortable issue, aided by legions of Islamic apologists that act like a fifth column.
Scholar Robert Spencer hits the nail on the head when he says that “the United States cannot possibly defeat an enemy that we are afraid to name.” Rather than be satisfied to accept vague terms like “long-term threats” and “stateless terrorists,” voters should demand precise answers on what these candidates intend to do about radical Islam both here and abroad on the day they take office.
Other than Ron Paul, most of the other candidates, particularly the Democrats, still view government as the engine to identify and solve any and all problems, from “global warming” and the healthcare uninsured to economic “stimulus packages” and “bringing back automotive jobs” to Michigan.
They throw out undigested and untested ideas, proposals and dollar amounts with abandon in the hope that some of them will take root in the hearts of voters.
With the devalued housing industry and sub-prime mortgage loan crisis, candidates prattle about tax credits for those who face foreclosure. In the face of high oil prices, other candidates suggest everything from windfall profit taxes on oil producers to higher gas taxes on consumers to curtail fuel consumption.
And all candidates talk about decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but no one has developed a coherent plan for doing so.
This “government-to-the-rescue” approach for every perceived crisis means two things: one, that political leaders have no bedrock faith in the market to correct transient economic forces, but only see Keynesian government spending and redistribution as the viable answer to change adverse conditions; and two, the unspoken way to achieve this is invariably by higher taxation, increased regulation and even more redistribution and/or subsidy.
Although they will not tell you this, those candidates who promise you anything to fix these problems will also tax you and regulate your business the most.
Don’t forget that campaign promises mean nothing unless opposing parties in the Congress form coalitions to pass any kind of meaningful legislation pushed by the executive branch. George W. Bush was unable to do anything with his promise to reform the Social Security system because of congressional opposition, primarily from Democrats.
As the presidential contenders joust with each other to win state delegates, they are beginning to throw spitballs at one another’s record and experience. Most recently, the electorate is being divided up along racial, gender and religious lines, so the pols can pander to each special interest group.
This looming scenario will further cloud the issues, leaving voters to evaluate candidates for superficial reasons rather than on what they might actually do in office, and what kind of persons they will appoint to head government agencies.
It can’t be said often enough: What is left unsaid is usually the most important.
* * *
Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications. He may be reached at kalellis@newsmax.com.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
|
