What’s Wrong with Politics in America

The title is purposely without a question mark; I mean it as a statement. I don’t claim to be all-wise, but I can see what I think is the major flaw in political discussions today. Listen to the candidates or watch the posts on social media and one thing becomes clear: “truth” is being reduced to sound-bite size. I put truth in quotes because what is being sold as truth is, often as not, anything but true.

An article titled, “Do You Know Who Saul Alinsky Is?” by Ellen Cora in the AMAC newsletter reveals a dirty little secret about the Left’s approach to truth. Cora says of Alinsky’s methods, “Instead of using the truth they are taught to avoid rational arguments when getting their points across.” Why should you care what Alinsky said? Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton have both proudly admitted their connection with Alinsky. Clinton and Obama each wrote a college paper analyzing Alinsky and putting him in a positive light. It is no wonder they deal with truth so lightly. It is part of their strategy.

Years ago I taught a high school class called Forensics, also known as debate. The word debate has a specific meaning to educators, and I contend that the failure to honestly debate the truth of an opponent’s claims is one of the biggest things wrong with politics today. In a true debate, each side has the opportunity to present a case, and the opposing side then gets the chance to rebut the argument. Rebuttal involves carefully examining each point of the opposition and revealing its weakness, whether that is factual error or faulty assumptions.

The political theater that is called debate today has no resemblance to real debate. The primary debates are totally ludicrous. The actors merely spout their campaign slogans and take the occasional swipe at one of their opponents. One-on-one candidate debates have not been much better for the last few election cycles. Though the stage is less crowded, it merely gives each candidate more time to speechify and toss allegations. Seldom does true debate take place.

Here's how it might look if true debate were happening. Hillary Clinton might say that she intends to create more well-paying jobs in infrastructure improvements and green energy development, a claim she has made repeatedly. In rebuttal, Trump could point out that infrastructure jobs are government jobs, and therefore, would require tax money to fund. Green energy subsidized by government also requires infusion of government dollars, once again drawn from tax payers. In other words, Clinton’s jobs program would either increase the tax burden on people already working, or else it would decrease the funding available in some other government program. This is not job creation; it is government welfare funding a work project.

Hillary could do the same thing with Trump’s arguments. He might present his plan to build a wall across our southern border. Hillary could respond with facts about the historical effectiveness of walls in controlling illegal immigration. It is not likely that she will take that approach. If true to form, she will more likely brand Trump as a racist xenophobe who hates all immigrants. This too is straight from Alinsky’s playbook. In the AMAC article, Cora notes, “Alinsky identified ridicule as a potent weapon. It is hard to counteract — and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.” Unfortunately, Trump is well known for his infuriated reactions.

The failure of the candidates to truly debate the issues leaves it up to the voters to ferret out the truth about the candidates’ positions. Luckily, we have many ways to do that. Earlier generations had to rely on a limited number of broadcast or print sources. The advent of cable news and countless Internet news web sites has made finding information simple. The hard part now is knowing whom to trust and how to weigh the information that comes down the cyber pike. Voters must do what the candidates won’t: examine platforms and policy statements and look for weakness, error and outright deception.

As believers blessed with a participatory political system, we have a responsibility to make every effort to get people in office who will champion our values. I am saddened when I hear fellow-believers say they are tired of the campaign hoopla, and they are thinking of not voting at all. Abstaining is lazy, and it violates the admonition of James: “To him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” Maybe there won’t be a “Christian” candidate to vote for, but there will almost always be one who is more in line with our values than another.

I recently heard of a sermon titled, "How Would Jesus Vote?" I don't know the answer, but I am quite sure of this: He would want His followers to do everything possible to keep America moored to the Judeo-Christian values that have assured our freedoms thus far. I firmly believe that the mess our country is in now is due in large part to believers who didn’t bother to participate in the last few election cycles. We must not allow America to be torn from its traditional foundations because of our apathy. We have to pay attention, spend some time in research, ignore all the personal opprobrium and then vote. It is my opinion that the biggest thing wrong with politics in America is the apathy of believers. We are the majority; we need to start taking our responsibility seriously.