Avoiding an Election Year Snow Job

During this election year you can occasionally hear me on the air proclaim that “KRKS Mornings with Tom Moller” is a politics-free zone (except sometimes on Focus on the Family.)  But let me deviate slightly from that with these non-partisan suggestions to help you see more clearly through the blizzard of presidential campaign rhetoric: know the arguments regarding the issues that are most important to you, research the candidates’ histories regarding those issues, and compare their historical positions with their current rhetoric to determine if what they say is truthful or deceptive. 

Start with a study of the issues without initially concerning yourself with the candidates’ positions on them.  Identify the issues that matter most to you, study all arguments concerning each issue, and come to an informed conclusion as to what your views are.  Here are some of the issues that might figure into your thinking (many of these overlap.)

                War in Iraq

                War in Afghanistan

                Iran

                Middle Eastern countries

                Israel

                Terrorism

                Russia

                Supreme Court nominees

                Immigration

                Abortion

                Economy

                Energy

                Domestic oil drilling

                Alternative energy

                Dependence on foreign oil

                Health care

                Environmental issues

                Same sex marriage

                Domestic partners

                Income taxes

                Corporation taxes

                Capital gains taxes

After studying the issues themselves, then research what each candidate’s history is concerning those issues.  Go online to legislative and governmental websites and see for yourself how each candidate voted.  Look for other sources including websites that will give you actual speeches or statements by the candidates, or interviews with the candidates.  Don’t listen to current campaign rhetoric at this point.  Your task is to learn as much as you can about each candidate’s history.  You can also look up newspaper archives concerning the candidates’ positions, but be sure to read actual news reports detailing those positions, not “analysis” or “opinion.”  Your purpose is to get the straight scoop about the candidates’ history regarding the issues, unfiltered by friend or foe. 

Only after getting an understanding of the candidates’ history concerning the issues are you equipped to evaluate the trustworthiness of campaign rhetoric.  At this point listen to the claims of both sides – the candidates themselves and their surrogates (campaign spokesmen and other advocates.)   If the rhetoric squares with the candidates’ historical positions, it can be trusted as accurate.  If it deviates from historical positions, you need to be suspicious of it.

 A healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing to have here.  Talk is cheap – especially in an election year.  Candidates will try to put themselves in the best possible light to get your vote – even sometimes to the point of lying or shading the truth.  Opponents will try to paint the worst picture they can of the other candidate – even sometimes to the point of distortion or making an issue of something that actually is irrelevant.  Candidates’ surrogates will do the same.  And, yes, even “unbiased” reporters will sometimes nuance their stories by flavoring the facts to the benefit or detriment of a candidate. 

If you find a discrepancy between a candidate’s historical position and current statements, your next task is to discover why.  If he acknowledges such a change of opinion and satisfactorily explains why, you can assume the rhetoric is trustworthy.  However, if he puts out a smokescreen by being unclear, the trustworthiness of what he says is suspect, and he may be trying to deceive you in order to get your vote. 

One of the things you might run across is a candidate criticizing a particular vote his opponent made in the past.  Examine closely why the candidate cast that vote.  He may have voted against it because of amendments or “pork” spending (earmarks) attached to the bill that had nothing to do with the bill itself.  His history may indicate that he likely was in favor of the original intent of the bill, but he could not allow bad amendments to piggy-back on a good bill.   (You’ve no doubt heard ads to the effect that “Candidate B voted against Motherhood.”  What the ad did not say was that the “Motherhood” bill had 300 million dollars of unnecessary and unrelated spending amendments attached.)

Be on the alert for these and other misrepresentations.  The more misrepresentations or especially the more egregious the misrepresentation, the more skeptical you must become of the candidate himself.  (I’m not referring to mistakes, or misstatements, which we all make from time to time, especially in off the cuff comments.  I’m referring to out and out premeditated and often scripted misrepresentations.)

It also needs to be said that you should not be looking for perfection in a candidate.  Virtually all of us have things in our past that contradict what we now profess.  However, that does not change the fact that character does matter because it impacts whether or not you can trust the candidate.  If sins or flaws are discovered that may impact a candidate’s character, find out how the candidate is dealing or has dealt with them.  Is there a documented unrepentant history?  How has the candidate addressed the issue - has he simply refused to acknowledge it, does he dismiss it with a disingenuous weak admission (often accompanied by blaming others,)  or does he take responsibility in acknowledging and correcting it? 

Politicians often talk in generalities using slogans and unflattering characterizations.  Demand specifics.  Form your opinion based on specifics, not on generalities.  Listen for specifics during candidate debates or on broadcast interviews with the candidates or their spokesmen.  (Don’t rely on newscast “sound bites” that incompletely address an issue and may not be in context.)  Examine those specifics against the candidate’s past history to see if the rhetoric is trustworthy. 

We live in a “People Magazine” culture where superficiality reigns.  For example, voters who switched their allegiance during a previous campaign say they did so because the candidate was more likeable, came across better on television, and seemed [my emphasis] more trustworthy.  These are not good reasons for voting for a particular person.  Never go for what “seems.”  Always go for evidence. (We Christians are susceptible to what “seems,” though perhaps in a different way.  Some of us wrongly identify what “seems” as a word from God.  We definitely ought to pray for God to guide us, but that guidance will include using our minds to discover validating or disqualifying evidence and not just what “seems”!)   

As you follow these steps, you will get a feel for what rhetoric you can trust and what you can’t trust.  Disregard what you can’t trust, factor in what you can trust, and on that basis you can decide with some degree of confidence who deserves your vote. 

There was a time, perhaps, when candidates endeavored to bring about clarity in their campaigns.  But today it seems that much of the effort is to do a snow job on you.  These suggestions will help you see through the blizzard.