Money, the Iraq War and the Evils of Pandering

Bill Maher addresses what Eisenhower called the modern military-industrial complex in this article - and he makes a good point. Our government has never been quite so connected to the private sector as during the G.W. Bush years - years that also brought the terrible waste of taxpayer's money (and one of the biggest lies told to the people in American history) called the Iraq War.

Now, despite his support for the war, I don't dislike McCain; I actually think he's a generally good person. However, I think that coming so close to finally winning the presidency is changing him, and not for the better. As the race progresses toward November, I think we're going to see him make more and more moves to placate traditional GOP voters - moves that may be against his character, but can help him win. In short, we will see a lot of pandering, a lot of flip-flopping, a lot of mixed words. Now, many critics criticize Obama for being all talk and no action. But as I have mentioned before, talk comes before action. If a candidate can't get their story straight (as usually happens when they don't actually believe the stuff that comes spewing from their mouths), it's a pretty blatant sign they're either pandering or they haven't formed an opinion yet (in which case, they should just admit the truth, set a date by which they will have a proper response for the public and research the issue in order to form an educated opinion). While, in theory, a large part of being a politician is pleasing your constituency, voters want to see someone (particularly in the office of president) with a solid character whose words and actions accurately represent their own beliefs. This is one of the major problems I see in the candidacies of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. They've been pandering, mixing up their words, contradicting themselves, tripping all over the issues. Pandering leads to deceived voters. Pandering leads to presidents whose actions don't match their words. Pandering leads to backroom arrangements, to secret alliances, to mistakes like the Iraq War. Because if there's anything that Iraq has taught us, it's that the president and those he or she aligns themself with will follow their true beliefs, not what they say in public.

On the other hand, Obama has been remarkably steadfast and consistent. His words and ideas lead me to believe (and I mean really BELIEVE) he is a person with a strong character who is speaking words he actually believes (and I mean really BELIEVES). Why do I think this? Well, for many reasons, but one of the biggest ones is that he has admitted mistakes, admitted ignorance, and provided arguments that are not necessarily the politically safe route. And it's worked out for him in the race, which gives me many warm and fuzzy feelings about the future. Because if it's worked out for Obama, even though he's taken non-traditional route, it means the old bag o' political tricks isn't working on the American people (at least on the Democratic side). Maybe (and I know this is quite optimistic) we're wising up. Maybe we've figured out that honesty, rather than always saying the right thing, really is the best policy. Maybe we can start trusting politicians again, even if it's just a little, and implicitly, that means we will start trusting each other. How great does that sound? And that's why Obama's message of personal accountability and citizens taking responsibility for change in America resounds like it does - because deep in our hearts, we know it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the majority votes for someone that trusts Americans to get involved in the political system, we'll trust each other and see that it's not pointless to get involved in the political system. Because if the president built his platform on American involvement in the political system, and he really believes it's the best way to progress into the future, he better back that up - which means not ignoring American desires. And that's what the lie about WMDs really was - it was the adminstration ignoring American desires in order to accomplish their own ends. It was pandering. Pandering was the reason we ended up spending $5,000 a second. So my point is, be very wary of pandering. Vote for someone you believe is telling the truth, because if recent history has taught us anything, it's that in the end, they're just going to do what they believe is right anyway.