Election season and ISIS: The two contexts of ‘degrade and ultimately destroy’

IMAGE: Montage

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., September 8, 2014 – In recent months, the Islamic State went from “a JV team,” according to President Obama, to “a threat to the civilized world… beyond anything that we’ve seen … (and) as sophisticated and well-funded as any group,” according to Secretary of Defense Hagel. The President has since revised his position to reflect a need to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Had the President reflected upon the political environment in which he participates, perhaps he would have come to that conclusion earlier. After all, it’s an election season; a time when the Parties traditionally attempt to “degrade and ultimately destroy” each other.

Brace yourselves; we are in the final two months of a mid-term election. This is a period of no-holds-barred politics featuring massive ad campaigns, a suspension of ethical behavior, and a surge of “boots on the ground” to get uninformed citizens to cast an emotional vote.

The Democrats will trot out the words racist, sexist and homophobe to try to damage the reputations of their Republican counterparts sufficiently to defeat them. Conversely, in an ironic twist of fate, Republicans will try to tie their Democratic challengers to President Obama, whose approval ratings are plunging faster than property values in northern Iraq.

The Parties will not hesitate to misrepresent the truth to “degrade and ultimately defeat” their nemeses or to fund-raise among their most ardent, low-information supporters. Name calling, innuendo and fear-mongering will be the “name of the game” until November 4th. If they get caught, they can always “walk back” their comments and pretend they cannot be held responsible for what they have said.

The candidates will also flood us with campaign promises they have no intention of honoring. After all, they know we won’t hold them accountable… because we never do.

In 2012, we returned over 90 percent our incumbents to office despite their dismal approval ratings. That is why we have so many elected officials who pontificate change but seem incapable of achieving it after serving multiple terms in office.

Behavior doesn’t seem to enter into the equation either. For example: When Senator Robert Byrd passed away in office after serving 51 consecutive years, former President Clinton dismissed Byrd’s membership in the Ku Klux Klan in a eulogy by saying, “I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollers of West Virginia, (and) he was trying to get elected.” Okay then… now we understand the Senator’s membership in the KKK and his vehement opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It was just politics.

To tip the scales further, the Parties have taken it upon themselves to draw Congressional Districts in a manner that makes little sense other than to assure their incumbents get re-elected. Until we begin to vote for the best candidates rather than defaulting to whomever represents the Party with which we most closely identify our political leanings, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for the debacle our Government has become.

We live in an interesting time when form often triumphs over substance; when name recognition and public persona seems to have become more important in the selection of our leaders than their character or solutions. We have allowed our major Parties to foster a divide in this country and to profit from it. Yet, we appear to be continually surprised at how ineffective and inefficient our resultant Government is.

It is time to wake up.

Too often, we have allowed followers to be hailed as leaders. Individuals who might find themselves hard pressed to qualify for management positions in the private sector are cast as being the best our country has to offer for higher office.

Actually, “cast” is a good word because so many of our elected officials merely play a role that is written for them by their Party.

Think about it.

Because we have allowed the cost of running for office to become prohibitively high, we tend to attract followers rather than leaders; individuals with such a deep, narcissistic need to “win” that they are willing to surrender their right to exercise independent judgment in exchange for the massive sum of money that’s required to successfully compete in the political auctions that have replaced our elections.

In return for the millions (to billions) of dollars it now takes to be the “high bidder,” they must bow to their Party.

An image consultant grooms them, styles their hair, and tells them what to wear. That is why we see so many of them during election years wearing jeans and an open-collar shirt to show that “they’re in touch with the common man”… and of course, their sleeves are inevitably rolled up in the tired metaphor that suggests “they’re ready to get to work.”

Meanwhile, the Party’s marketing gurus are waging their own “War on Dignity” as they convince naïve people that it’s an honor to stand behind a politician as he or she reads a speech and serve as little more than human wallpaper. The truth is: The bobble-head brigade is selected on a basis of its composite mix of age, sex, race, heritage, and any other characteristic that can be visually exploited to add credibility to the speech.

There was a time when credibility was established by the stature of the office and the “content” of the speech… but no more. Now, it must be manufactured by a marketing gimmick.

Also behind the scenes, pollsters are scurrying about trying to determine what we “want” to hear rather than what we “need” to hear. The data is parsed by a group of political consultants who separate the favorable information from the unfavorable and pretend the latter never existed. Next, they share what’s left with a team of professional writers.

Then, the writers craft the message that the actors… sorry, I meant “political leaders”… read from a TelePrompTer. If they do a good job reading the text, they’re somehow deemed to be great orators and worthy of leading us forward.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, we have little insight into our candidates’ breadth and depth of knowledge. We only know the words the writers chose to reflect the points the strategists favored from the data that was harvested from the polls that were taken. We really don’t even know what our candidates would have worn had someone not dressed them.

So, the next time you hear a politician speak and find yourself feeling frustrated… at least now you know why.

Luckily, it doesn’t have to be this way.  If you’re willing to become more informed and cast an intelligent vote on November 4th as opposed to a political one, you can begin to do something about it. As a picture published by ProLiberty.org suggests, there are three types of voters: Leftwing, Rightwing, and Knowing. Which one are you?


A Civil Assessment has been designed to serve as an Op-Ed forum for you. You are invited to offer your opinion and to discuss your position in the Comment Section. Please be sure that your “assessments” remain “civil” so that they may earn the respect of others.


TJ O’Hara provides nonpartisan political commentary every Tuesday on The Daily Ledger, one of One America News Network’s featured shows (check local cable listings for the channel in your area or watch online at 8:00 PM and Midnight PM Eastern / 5:00 and 9:00 PM Pacific. His segment appears about 35 minutes into the program.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

Previous articleRay Rice fired by NFL thanks to social media
Next articleCotto & Co.: Talking with Leon Kolankiewicz, Californians for Population Stabilization
TJ OHara
T.J. O'Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States. Along the way, he earned the first Presidential endorsement of the Whig Party since the 1850s, his website was archived by the Library of Congress for its historic significance, and he won the first on-line “virtual” Presidential election (conducted by We Want You) by a commanding 72.1% and 72.7% over Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, respectively. His column explores our Nation’s most pressing issues, challenges conventional thinking, and provides an open forum for civil discussion. Learn more about TJ at his website and connect with him on Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, YouTube and Twitter (@tjohara2012). To order his books, go to Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Smashwords or Sony Reader.

    • Thank you, sir!

      Please share it with your social network if you’d like to contribute to the cause of creating a more informed electorate.

  • Again, TJ you articulate the situation so well! Now, how to inspire the voters who have been turned off or who have given in to the belief that their votes do no matter? This is the challenge.

    • Thank you for your comment, Mr. Maxsenti. You underscore the critical issue.

      Voters have been conditioned to believe that they only have two legitimate choices. Unfortunately, in some cases, those two choices are the least legitimate ones that can be made.

      In my opinion, we would all benefit from a movement that would educate the electorate about their civic responsibility and how our Nation works. I would love to see that education extended to our children as well, so that our future generations would understand what makes our democratic Republic different from any form of government that preceded it. Maybe then, we would take the time to become informed about the issues and the candidates, dismiss the non-substantive marketing campaigns of the Parties, and vote with our minds rather than our emotions.

      If that were to occur, the Parties would not necessarily fade away. They would simply be forced to adapt to a world that favors substance over form. It would be a political version a Darwinism, and in any event, it would be interesting to witness.

      Thank you again for your comment.

  • Eric N Keya Erickson

    One of the major benefits of no longer having television service in our home is that we haven’t seen a single political ad in two years. I watch the news several times a week, but not network news, and of course inform myself through excellent articles like this. I don’t miss any of the stuff I used to suffer through. I’ve often thought it would be beneficial to run an election system like England or one of the other European countries. Everybody gets six weeks to run and the same amount of money. Then there are not political favors to cash in and the public only has to suffer for six weeks instead of two years.

    • Thank you for your comment and kind words, Mr. Erickson. You are proof that one can remain informed without surrendering to the presentation of information that may be tainted by the influence of advertising dollars.

      The world is replete with election systems that offer a less party-centric approach. We should demand a fair system of competition among our candidates and their ideas. Instead, we default to an environment that, as I have described in the past, reflects more of an auction than an election.

      From what I can tell, most people would welcome significant election reform. Unfortunately, they naively expect their elected representatives to pursue it.

      The two major Parties have no interest in introducing balance into the electoral process. They have artfully established a duopoly that almost precludes the threat of legitimate competition. As a result, they remain in control; maintaining and expanding their power by using money and their ability to manipulate the rules associated with ballot access to create nearly insurmountable barriers to entry.

      Until the People demand substantive electoral reform and make the Parties pay a price for ignoring that ultimatum, we will continue to be led by officials who either represent the highest bidder or the lesser of two evils.

      Thank you again for your comment.

  • Wolfeman

    Not all were fooled – Gen. Bill Odom predicted that the 2003 Iraq invasion would be one of the greatest strategic disasters in US history.

  • Ricardo Tubbs

    Where’s Biden hidin’? Wasn’t he supposed to be some sort of Middle East expert?

  • Bill Cortell

    Arguably, the decision to invade Iraq is the worst decision in US history.