Reality Check 101

On Sept. 17, one of our country’s most important early presidential debates took place, and most Americans never knew it.  All the declared candidates, both Democratic and Republican, were invited. Their responses were predictable. Democrats and front-running Republicans (Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson) were no-shows.

The participation problem was, more than likely, two-fold in nature. First and foremost the event was sponsored, moderated and the results polled by social issues leaders and organizations, who are frightening to most Democratic and fence-straddling Republican politicians. As Rabbi Aryeh Spero of the Jewish Action Alliance, a debate panelist, quipped, “How can we expect these no-show candidates to take on Osama bin Laden and other world leaders when they’re afraid to show up and answer questions from Phyllis Schlafly?”

Fear of the panelists, their organizations and 34 other questioners was not the strongest message conveyed by the no-shows however. The most pronounced message was one of disregard — for social issues that are core to our nation’s survival and for “fly-over” folks who treasure the values addressed during the debate. Rabbi Spero’s comment could be applied to the absentees’ nonelection year disconnect with the majority of Americans.

A push to commitments was the hallmark of the Values Voter Debate. Careerist politicians run like jackrabbits from such things. In round two of the debate, candidates were required to answer 35 questions with a simple “yes” or “no” and a one-minute option to explain after their answer was registered. In the polluted atmosphere of campaign-rubberized rhetoric, it was a breath of fresh air to hear candidates give straight answers concerning issues such as judicial activism, multiculturalism, abortion, amnesty for illegals, gun control, hate crimes, stem-cell research and much more.

By their truancy, AWOL candidates revealed their intentions to campaign by a strategy of emphasis on the “secondary impulse” of society — entitlements (government-driven health care, Social Security, etc.). Happily, those present in the debate were not only willing but also courageous enough to address issues of “primary impulses.”

The second part of the participation problem for the Values Voters Debate was one of ever increasing social engineering, if not outright censorship, by the electronic and major print media. Just as all presidential candidates were invited to fill podiums for the debate, so too were all the major media outlets invited to sit in during the event. Predictably, not one major news outlet chose to take its public trust seriously. Not only did they not attend, but there was barely a whisper concerning the forum either before or after it took place.   Fortunately for Americans who cared, live Internet streaming was provided. The debate was archived along with in-depth analysis at www.valuesvoterdebate.com.

In the light of their behavior, mainstream media’s supposed inability to understand the growing attraction of alternatives to their propaganda is perplexing. Because public opinion is information-driven, their manipulations should be recognized for what they are, a calculated abuse of the public trust if not social sedition.

To the American people’s credit, they are beginning to realize that they must now go elsewhere, to talk radio, private publications and the internet for the “rest of the story.”   IsAmericaturning left, as one issue of The Economist asked? If it is, it is being guided in part by a corrupted media. That may make sidewalk protesters feel justified in their error but it does nothing to promote genuinely wise decisions by Americans concerning domestic or foreign policy.