By Selwyn Duke

Nothing about last night’s debate surprised me.  Sarah Palin acquitted herself just fine, and, after Saturday Night Live and mainstream-media mocking diminished expectations, cleared her lowered bar by at least a moose-length.  As for Joe Biden, he was somewhat restrained; he couldn’t risk female-voter ire by "hitting the girl."  So, I suppose the burning question is, who won?

Not so fast.  I always roll my eyes at our conception of "winning" a debate, as if it’s a game of billiards.  In reality, the goal of any discussion or debate should be the discovery of Truth; thus, the true winner is he who expresses more of it.  And, if that is the measure, Palin certainly prevailed.

Yet I’m not naive.  Ronald Reagan once said when alluding to his understanding of what’s important in politics, "I long ago learned the difference between critics and box office."  Whatever critics may say, people will, ultimately, look at who swayed more votes.  As to this, not surprisingly, Fox News and Drudge Report polls showed Palin as the clear victor while CBS and CNN polls picked Biden by a wide margin (this hinges on whether a given news source has a mainly rightist or leftist viewership/readership).  How will it ultimately shake out?  Only time will tell, but my sense is that it won’t have much of a long-term effect at all.

As for the critics, those pundits and talking heads cast as experts, they exhibit the same kind of dissonance; it only
requires a cursory perusal of the news sites to find one who is saying
exactly what you want to hear.

That is, unless you want to hear the truth.  That’s why I write.

The truth is that, to a great degree, these debates are much ado about nothing.  Their topics simply reflect the people’s immediate concerns and, consequently, do little to address our actual problems.

Think about it: Where were the questions about the immigration crisis?  Yes, I know Barack Obama and John McCain both favor amnesty, I know we’re experiencing economic woes, and I know people have forgotten about our sieve-like southern border.  But the point is that a problem doesn’t cease to be a problem because it’s off the front page.

OK, so now I’m getting funny looks.  Many are wondering how it could elude me that Americans are frightened by our current economic meltdown.  It doesn’t.  It also doesn’t escape me, however, that what we’re now witnessing are weeds that have broken the surface, ones whose seeds were sown long ago.  And if we as a people — and I don’t mean the small percentage of us who study politics — really cared about such things and were engaged, we would have treated the disease long before the symptoms became obvious. 

For one thing, we would have realized that our Federal Reserve Bank is a legalized counterfeiting operation.  One hundred years ago, the dollar was worth 100 cents when valued against gold or silver.

Now it is worth four. 

Yes, that’s four cents.

With our currency’s value being diluted, is it any wonder that prices are rising and the dollar had been losing value on the international market?

We also would not have elected social engineers such as Jimmy Carter, who gave us the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.  It pressured lenders into giving unqualified borrowers loans, under the idea that lower-income people (especially minorities) should be able to acquire things (homes) they couldn’t really afford.  It was very cushy and compassionate. 

It was also stupid. 

The laws of economics — which really means the laws of man’s nature — won’t suspend themselves to accomodate good intentions.

Then, we would have cared about the general greed and materialism that attends increasing secularization.  (Sorry, atheists, but that really is the problem.  What happens is that you start to "store up treasures in this world.")  Oh, and when I say "greed," I don’t allude to what our shallow politicians do.  The problem isn’t just Wall Street and fat cats, but also main street and alley cats; it’s the majority of us.  Yes, it’s the bankers who wanted a quick buck, but it’s also people who want Wal-Mart-size houses and a new toy every week.  We don’t need what the late George Carlin called "stuff" to be happy.

I also don’t imply — and those who do nauseate me — that government can somehow mitigate greed.  This is an especially ironic notion given that some of the most greedy people seem to be in government.  Uncle Scam can no more eliminate greed than it could lust, envy, sloth, wrath, gluttony or pride.  Although it does seem very capable of exacerbating these problems. 

Of course, you could mention many more real issues, things that should be front page.  But they won’t be because, not only are many people ill-informed, they also have frighteningly short memories.  As an example, just consider John McCain and immigration.  Just a little more than a year ago, his Republican primary campaign was in the tank because he had shamefully supported scamnesty; politically, he had been left for dead.  What happened, America? 

I can tell you.  Most people make decisions on an emotional basis, not an intellectual one (like when buying a Pluto-sized house).  In the summer of 2007, people were angry at McCain and they spewed venom.  Then their anger subsided, he reverted back from border-war zero to war hero, and the result may be that we’ll end up with a Chicagoland Nero.

Talk about forgetting the mistakes of the past.  Most of us can’t even remember those of a few months ago.

                       Protected by Copyright