Political Pandering (7/11/2006)

Someone probably could quantify political pandering to be expressed mathematically. We can see that political pandering increases in direct proportion to the size and difficulty of cleaning up an administration’s mess. Or, the bigger the problems and the more difficult their solutions, the more foolish the diversions that must be created. We see that as the enormous problems created by President Bush’s policies grew, the solutions became more complex; so he and his political cohorts (unable to offer real solutions and hoping to divert the public) turned to the worst kind of political pandering.

Bush has taken us into a war that kills our young people, drains our financial resources, breeds terrorism and hurts America’s worldwide image. No end is in sight. Bush has even said the solution belongs to the next president! American jobs are being outsourced, inflation nips at our heels, prescription drug prices are skyrocketing and millions are losing health insurance. Our foreign oil dependence grows, thus sending our petro dollars to those very countries that harbor terrorists. We are unprepared for natural disasters, even when we know they are coming. Remember that thousands are still homeless after Hurricane Katrina; recent floods in the northeast showed again that we are unprepared. Add the issues of immigration, the largest budget deficit ever (call it a birth tax because our children and grandchildren will have to pay for it), and global warming and we’ve got a huge mess with no easy cleanup.

So what do we get? Instead of Bush and Congress focused to solve these problems, we get virulent political pandering in two proposed constitutional amendments. The first sought to write discrimination into our constitution to ban gay marriage. That two people of the same sex love each other seemed to be a bigger concern to the Bushies than terrorism. So they focused on that, not on catching Osama bin Laden. Fortunately that hateful amendment failed to get traction.

The next big ballyhoo was a proposed constitutional amendment that read : The Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Anyone who opposed the amendment was called unpatriotic. Has anyone burned a flag inside the U.S. in the last 5 years? If this amendment had passed, questions would arise as to what exactly is a flag and what constitutes desecration? Lots of clothing has a flag; the flag appears on newspapers and campaign materials; it’s a postage stamp; the list goes on. Are these flags? If so, how should they be disposed of? And what about all those frayed flags displayed on flagpoles, or at night with no light, or on the wrong side of a car, or hung the wrong way? Are the displayers protestors or patriots? A flag displayed on a car should be fixed to the chassis or clamped to the right fender; when people clamp it to their roof and/or on the driver’s side, are they secretly signaling a conspiracy against our country? Writing on a flag is a violation of the flag code, but President Bush autographed one in July 2003; Kid Rock wore the flag as a poncho (a real no no) but was invited to and praised at a Republican fundraiser. Would we have to create the flag police just to handle all of this? Then our courts and jails would be jammed, not to mention the cost.

And so, instead of the Bushies working to solve to the big problems, we, the American public, get political pandering. The November election results will tell whether we fell for it or realized we were being bamboozled.

- Judith Kohler

Commentaries Home