This week, which is not the week I turned 17 (sorry for the delayed publishing time) I wandered around the southish eastish coast looking at colleges. The morning I was supposed to look at Georgetown, I got into a rather lengthy discussion with a gentleman from AIPAC, and missed the Georgetown tour. Not to be put off, I decided to wander around the campus pretending to be a student. This actually went fairly well–I enjoyed an econ class and a free cookie–until I started talking. Almost every person I talked to eventually asked me what dorm I was living in, and what other classes I was taking. My answer was usually…”um…yea I dunno the orangeish one near that road…wait-actually-I-live-off-campus-my-parents-donated-money-but-like…look over there!!!!”
As for classes, I feigned deafness.
The point is, I could have spent about 5 minutes making my fake student life more realistic. Dorms are posted on the internet, and I had a list of classes with me. With these simple steps, I would have been able to keep up the conversations I was having, and no one would have known that I was really a whole two years younger than they were.
So what am I complaining about today? The fact that politicians no longer think Americans have enough intelligence for them to even bother spending a couple of minutes making up believable lies. Granted, politicians are going to lie. But they don’t have to be so blatant about it! It would be one think for Obama to say that he’s going to decrease the influence of lobbyists, but to say that lobbyists, “have not funded [his] campaign?” Obama, in making this statement, is flat out assuming that most Americans don’t know the definition of a lobbyist. A lobbyist is just someone who tries to influence policy. When we write our congressmen, we are lobbyists. This means that pretty much everyone who is trying to be actively involved in politics has been a lobbyist at some point or another. Who is more likely to donate to a campaign: someone who’s involved in politics, or someone who isn’t? This may seem small, but politician’s belief in American stupidity goes much further.
Obama says that Fox is not a valid news source. Love Fox or hate it, Obama doesn’t like it because they don’t agree with him. Yet he tries to tell America that Fox is just an invalid news source. He has some good points.
Okay, bad pun. But Glenn Beck may well be insane…though the that could be said for Michael Moore or Arianna Huffington. The most biased parts of Fox are labeled as opinion shows. On the overall, the media has a liberal bias (even MSNBC admits this, having published this article about how more reporters donate money to the left), but Obama doesn’t call them invalid.
I’m not here to enter the Obama/Fox feud. I just want politicians to start treating Americans with some respect. How many of you have seen an ad in which a candidate claims he’s better than his opponent because he’s ‘not a career politician’? This is physically impossible. Whatever he was before, he’s now a career politician. At the end of some economy segments, I’ve seen reporters apologizing for the technical stuff, and thanking Americans for bearing with them.
We have common sense. We know that a health plan is going to cost money, that is it going to contribute to the deficit. We know that we aren’t going to win in Afghanistan any time soon, and that Israel and Palestine aren’ t falling in love. The bottom line is this: it’s one thing to give us false hope, but it’s another to tellobviously surrealistic lies.
So why do they do it? Because you can’t get elected by saying that things aren’t going to get any better, or that it will take time for the economy to recover, or by admitting that you are going to spend lots of money. Americans beg their politicians to lie to them, by voting those who promise impossibilities. So I’m not out to change the system (see the discussion under this article), but I’d love lies that were just a little bit more believable.