Integral to every democracy is objective truth. Lies and obfuscation corrupt the political process and allow the unworthy to assume positions of power. With such importance in factual truth, why is it not present in this political race?
Unfortunately for facts, they are not wanted. The truth is often inconvenient for political candidates; it weakens their narratives and destroys their credibility. The ability to manipulate the narrative with contrived falsities is the ability to control the truth. Integral to the truth is the dissemination of it. Here we arrive upon the undertaker of fact, the media. The media has the incredible ability to dig up truth buried by leagues of corruption and cover-ups, but it also has the ability to bury it. In this election cycle, the media has buried the truth.
With the case of Trump, a point of much contention is his support for the Iraq war. According to the media, Trump supported the war before it began as evidenced by a clip from the Howard Stern show where he tentatively expresses backing for the war by saying, “I guess so.” Despite such strong support expressed on Howard Stern’s show, Trump insists that he didn’t support the war before it started, citing numerous arguments with his good friend Sean Hannity over the prudence of sending our armed forces into Iraq. These claims have been confirmed by Sean Hannity. Whether or not you believe that is sufficient to prove that Trump did not support the war, is up to you.
Additionally, I would wager the conclusion you come to is heavily influenced by confirmation bias. Regardless, more important is what the media has decided not to report on. While CNN and the rest of the MSM are content to bicker about Trump’s support of a war he had no influence on, they deliberately fail to mention that Hillary Clinton not only verbally supported the war, but voted for the war in Iraq, and is quoted calling it “a business opportunity.” Which one is the media making a bigger story of? It’s a clear example of the media controlling the narrative. When they so clearly control this narrative, they are able to control the truth. They often bury facts about Hillary Clinton and misconstrue facts about Donald Trump.
The dissemination of falsities is only half of the crooked story. The audience that consumes such media is also responsible. A mix of both apathy and irrationality prevents the truth from entering the realm of politics; it is us that prevents it. Plagued by indifference, the electorate rarely bothers to do independent research on a candidate; rather, they trust the mainstream media or abstain from voting.
Of those who do vote, their decision on who to vote for is guaranteed to be irrational. We latch on to characteristics we find desirable in candidates, not policy specifics. People who plan on voting for Trump like his straight-talk and boisterous attitude and people who plan on voting for Clinton find her experience and composure desirable. When questioned, the average voter is unlikely to be able to provide specific policies of their chosen candidate; instead, they will respond in generalities or attack the other party’s candidate. Emotion is the foundation of their decision-making process.
Due to a corrupt media and a disinterested electorate, our elections are devoid of fact and substantial political discourse. However, it does not matter. The policies of the candidates do not matter because quite simply, they can’t implement them. The promises of the candidates do not matter because they will not be fulfilled. The only thing of substance in political discourse is seemingly the most superficial, our feelings. It is the character of the candidate, which is measured by our irrational emotions, that determines the quality of the President. The facts do not matter.
https://youtu.be/lqyJ7aWDwEg?t=12s
