Hilarious, sad, stupid, ignorant and downright unbelievable. I’m talking about radio talk shows, media commentators, reporters, editorialists, political pundits, and partisan party hacks across the board. Probably the most honest commentary I’ve heard recently was a Bill Moyers clip when he was interviewing Tom Brokaw. His main point? “I really don’t know Barack Obama.” Rope-a-doped, Tom agreed. “No. We really know nothing about his core beliefs.” (Of course, that didn’t stop them from campaigning and voting for him.) The sheer volume of spin, disinformation and propaganda out there is formidable.
I have zilch respect for the words-for-dollars, stories-for-votes, all-the-smart-people-agree-with-me-anyway media who are either so jaded or so brainwashed that they produce their junque blatantly, in full view of their consumers. They have no idea that the back of their hospital gowns are gaping open. It’s like they keep jabbering away with a glob of mayo clinging to the corner of their mouths and the rest of us keep motioning for them to wipe it off but to no avail. I’m convinced that they actually despise facts, at least any facts that prove their stories embarrassingly wrong. And these are the people who act as the official clearing houses for the truth.
This isn’t just about Barack Obama. He looms as the biggest visible target, but he is only one of many people in government who make critical decisions. We should make a concerted effort to educate ourselves about them, whether elected or appointed, as we can. Obviously, we have to concern ourselves with those who will directly impact our lives on a personal and a citizenship level. I admit that the job may be nearly impossible. The public access to crucial information has become extremely limited due to privacy laws, plus a fair amount of deliberate subterfuge to keep many facts hidden. But we can at least discern whether or not we are being told the truth or being sold a bill of goods.
The political party to which one belongs defines the broad outlines of a person’s principles. This may be vague, but we’re forced to start there because the person in question ostensibly ascribes to the party’s position. Do you really know what a party believes? Do you agree with the platform in every respect? Does the candidate or appointee embrace every plank of the platform or does he or she openly disagree with one or several of them?
Here are some other important questions. They may or may not matter to you, but each question does have some value on a sliding scale of relevance. I have noted some reasons for the questions to connect the relevancy dots.
- How old is the person? (Generation gap, youth culture familiarity)
- Is the person male or female? (Gender issues, philosophical viewpoint)
- Is this person a member of a minority group? (Racial issues, activist interests)
- How much life experience does this person have? (Success, failure, breadth of interests)
- What pivotal experiences does this person have? (Tragedy, abuse, financial loss or gain)
- Where was this person born and raised?
- What do former neighbors think about this person or family?
- What experience in public life?
- Who are this person’s mentors?
- Who are this person’s confidantes and associates?
- What college or university did this person attend?
- What was this person’s major?
- Does this person have any renowned teachers or professors?
- Does this person have a paper trail of essays, term papers or theses?
- Has this person contributed to journals, magazines or newspaper literature?
- What causes has this person joined or backed?
- From whom did this person accept campaign contributions?
- Does this person have military experience?
- Was this person a union member or the member of a guild?
- Was this person a member of a secret society or lodge?
- What professional associations or group memberships does this person have?
- On what sports teams, if any, did this person play?
- What do former schoolmates, college roommates or teammates say about him or her?
- What jobs has this person held?
- What opinions do former bosses and co-workers have of this person?
- Does this person have any strong or out-spoken convictions?
- Has this person had any physical, mental or emotional issues in the past?
- Has this person had any legal issues to deal with in the past?
- What legislation has this person backed if he or she was in public office?
These are things I can think of off the top of my head. And, I don’t do this for a living. How much more thorough and exhaustive should the media be who have professional credentials in the field? Even extreme partisan hacks should want to know the answers to many questions. We are not hiring a person just to do a job. We are hiring them to make critical and binding decisions about our lives, our possessions, our jobs, our money, our families, our religion and our freedom. The moment we hire them we give them the power to destroy us if they so choose. The position we offer them comes as close to having absolute authority over us as we may ever experience in this life. We have a paramount interest in making sure this person knows what he or she is talking about.
Any candidate who stonewalls, objects to the line of questioning, lies, equivocates or refuses to answer questions should be disqualified for the job from the get-go. The gravity of the position demands the most stringent and tough questions we can ask. We have a right to know as much as is humanly possible about a person in public office. We give up this right at our own peril.