Analysis for Critical Thinkers

There was recently another fine example of a politician getting caught up in a blunder. He realized that he said something that made no sense and then tried to sway the discussion away from the gaffe. We here at Truth and Sense call this the “Distract and Attack” strategy that is used so often by people that have no clear position on an issue.  

On Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at a presidential campaign stop in Columbus Ohio, Senator Obama stated that as President, he would send troops into Iraq if al Qaeda were forming a base there. This would shock some people solely because Obama has made it clear that he is in favor of surrender in Iraq. Presumably, this statement was made to somehow try and get the votes of some of the anti-terrorism bloc that still exists in this country. In a response made the next day, Senator McCain pointed out that “al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq, it’s called al Qaeda in Iraq”.

Apparently, Senator Obama realized that okay, al Qaeda is in fact in Iraq. So now what does one do as a presidential candidate? Distract and Attack. He responded that, although he thought that the question was “hypothetical”,  “…there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq”. Yet further, he added that “we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets”.

What is going on here? How did George Bush get into this discussion? Critical thinkers who are able to keep focus on the issue at hand will quickly point out that George Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. Do not be misled. There are those in this world inclined to the reflexive shouting of slogans and rhetoric. The issue here is what you would do about al Qaeda and terrorists in Iraq if you were elected President – not whose fault it was that there are terrorists in this world – or whatever tangent you can go off on. George Bush is not even running for President!

“Thank God!” some people may chant ironically as they simultaneously ban Bibles from public schools. But never mind the chanting for now, because please do not forget, we were talking about “What will you do about al Qaeda in Iraq?” Will you continue to attack, or will you give up as the new President?

Senator Obama – “…we will act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”

But you have proudly said that you were against the war on al Qaeda in Iraq – it is a major campaign issue for you.

But not if al Qaeda is forming a base there.

But al Qaeda has formed a base there already!

“But that was Bush’s fault!” (“Distract and Attack”)

We can examine that talking-point another time if you’d like, my fellow Critical Thinkers, but regardless, al Qaeda is there now! What are you going to do?

And so on and so on…

Say what you will about the war on terror. Some profess that the U.S. should surrender immediately, cut military funding, stop the interrogation of terrorist prisoners, release them at once, provide lawyers for them in order that they sue the United States as well as George Bush, protect them by prohibiting the interception of their communications and publicly ridicule and threaten to impeach any of those who dare to take a stand against terrorism.

Others pledge to continue the fight against terrorism – including fighting al Qaeda in Iraq –  despite severe opposition from fellow U.S. citizens – and candidates – to do so.

Regardless of how you feel and what facts you choose to cite, at least have a position. If you wish to discuss something, stick to that something and do not go changing the subject. We can then agree or disagree. If you are running for President, state exactly what your position is. It will help keep you out of circular arguments that collapse into “Distract and Attack”  Let the voters decide which candidate to support based on your positions, not on who you can blame for something unrelated.

?

Recently, the camp of Senator Hillary Clinton has floated the idea of having her opponent, Senator Obama, be her running mate as Vice-President in the upcoming election. Interestingly, at every opportunity, she points out all of the reasons why he is not Presidential material. Their story goes that he is inexperienced, he will not know what to do if the telephone rings at 3 in the morning, and he associates with certain people that a lot of other people do not like. They disagree on views, plans, and goals. She often points out the differences in their voting records as Senators, yet she is said to be considering him as the second-in-command.

Other than being a bit presumptuous to assume that she will win the nomination, and that Senator Obama would want to be her running mate anyway, it seems to be another attempt by Senator Clinton to be whatever the voters appear to want her to be. It is a very tight race for the Democratic Party nomination with reportedly record numbers of people voting and every vote counting. It appears that the actual nomination may wind up being decided by means other than the actual number of delegates won. Why not devise a scenario where all of those voters could have the “best of both worlds” – they could get Clinton and Obama in one package. But even Senator Clinton was reluctant to be too aggressive with pushing the running-mate issue until it was seen how it would play out with public opinion.

The only problem with this notion is that it calls into question every position that Senator Clinton says that she has on anything. If she fights for months and months against her opponent and attacks his position, it is strange that she could now want such a person as her running mate. As the saying goes, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”. That way, perhaps she can try to please people on both sides of the issue and wind up with all of the votes. One must admit that this makes perfect mathematical sense. It does however, cast much doubt on how strongly she stands on principles.

This is reminiscent of the presidential debate when John Kerry ran unsuccessfully against George Bush. During one debate, when talking about a vote for military funding for the war on terror, Kerry stated that “I voted for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.” After the debate, some people may have wondered why everybody on both sides of the funding issue did not love him and vote for him. (There are those that claim that he won that debate.) After all, what other possible position could there be that he hadn’t taken? Surely this would make everybody respect his views — regardless of your position, he voted like you would have! People with strong principles called into question what his real position was though and, possibly not receiving adequate explanation of the flip-flop, wound up voting the way that they did.

Without going into whatever position Senator Clinton may take on an issue, one must admit that it is hard to be against someone when their exact position is unclear or uncommitted. Hard that is, unless you are someone who believes that a strong stand on an issue – along with a clear explanation of your reasons for your strong stand – is an important trait that you look for in your next President.

You may be against a politician’s position and that is fine. It is the democratic process and that is your right. I may have a different position and that is my right as well. Sometimes though, it is not which “something” that you stand for that is important, but just that you stand for something.