Political Pandering

One thing I can't stand is political pandering. By that, I'm talking about when politicians make fallacious arguments because they sound good and play on the ignorance of the masses to garner support. This tactic is frequently used to cast a negative light on the opponent. It has been used to boost all kinds of positions both right and wrong. Most recently, it has been used by President George W. Bush in an attempt to discredit democrats leading up to the midterm election. In his speeches supporting various republican candidates, he frequently slams the democrats for being soft on terrorism.

In response, I'm thinking of running for congress, or maybe president for that matter. My platform will be that we should nuke all who stand in our way. That's right, nuke 'em. These terrorists hate our guts and want to kill us. If we don't get them, they'll get us. The great thing about this platform is that the things Bush has been saying support it. With the republicans focusing on being tough on terror added to my own claims that both the republicans and democrats are soft on terror, I can't lose. In fact, we wouldn't even need to have an election. We'll just declare me the winner. What? Did you say it's not a good idea to nuke all the terrorists? Of course it is. We have to be tough on terror.

This reasoning is obviously flawed. And the exact same flaw is present in Bush's argument. Bush is conveniently ignoring the fact that being hard on terror affects a lot more people than just the terrorists. Medical professionals should know this well. Pretty much every drug out there does more than just cure. These extra effects are known as side effects. The real question is not whether the drug cures the problem, but whether the cure is better than the side effects.

To extend my satire to the medical analogy let's say terrorism is our national flu. Nuking all the terrorists would be equivalent to committing suicide. End result: no more flu. Side effect: no more us. Well, if the world didn't nuke us, they would certainly be outraged. Bush's policy is more like taking some medicine that cures the flu but leaves us with cancer--the loss of our freedoms (see NSA wiretapping, and suspension of habeas corpus). What we need to find is a political flu shot that is relatively free of side effects.

The republicans aren't the only ones guilty of political pandering. Back in the last election, democrats criticize the war in Iraq by saying that there was no connection between Saddam and bin Laden. This argument just states something obvious with the intent of misdirection. We didn't need proof that Saddam and Osama were childhood pals to still have good reason to go to war. I'm not going to get into that discussion here. The point is not whether going to war was right or wrong, but that the stated argument was flawed. But it was another one of those arguments that sounds good enough to get support from the masses.

So I say to all politicians, stop pandering and give us real arguments. Or, if you don't have any real arguments, admit that you made a mistake and make changes. We'll think better of you for it.