Home / Commentary / America – The Land of Subjectivity

America – The Land of Subjectivity

As I sit here this morning and sift through my Facebook timeline and Twitter feed I can’t help but wonder – where did America’s sense of objectivity go? Or is it possible the citizens of this country were always this hopelessly subjective and the big mouths like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow just poured fuel on the fire by building a broadcasting business of out polarization?

Did our sensibilities become corrupted by the endless spin cycle of MSNBC and Fox News? Or has everyone really leaned that far left, or that far right, since the beginning of time? What ever happened to thinking for yourself rather than relying on an obnoxious TV talk show host to tell you how you should think about issues?

Last night’s debate felt less like a debate and more like a “liar, liar, pants on fire” elementary school playground argument between a couple of fourth graders. During and immediately following the presidential dust up in New York, fact checkers from the USA Today to the New York Times were busy compiling the list of all the misrepresentations, untruths and bold face lies. After reviewing several of these articles this morning it’s obvious to me that both candidates told their share of whoppers. But for some reason that doesn’t stop either side from shouting “did not, did too!”

There’s an old joke that goes like this – How can you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving. Well, whether you’re a Romney supporter or an Obama supporter, I have some startling news for you – both twisted, bent, distorted and fibbed last night about the facts because they want to win the election. This should come as no great shock. The next time you’re shopping for a new car go to a Ford dealership and Chevy dealership and ask the salesperson about their competition. Do you honestly believe either of them will give you a truthful assessment about the other’s product?

Lance Armstrong, doped, cheated and lied for over a decade in order to win 7 Tour De France titles. So what’s the harm in a couple of presidential candidates taking a little liberty with the truth in order to reach the highest office in the land? It’s part of the unsavory process. As enlightened citizens we must take what both of these men have to say with a grain of salt.

What does continue to surprise me is all the people who, either out of naivety or ideological blindness, kick and scream when the candidate they don’t like distorts the facts. Or flat out lies. It’s as if their choice for president is beyond reproach.

Well, don’t pee down my leg and tell me it’s raining. In the end this election, like all elections, isn’t about choosing which candidate was the most honest in a debate or campaign ad. And contrary to what either of these men may say on the campaign trail, it’s not about which will make you better off over the next four years.

The inconvenient truth is that all elections are about choosing the candidate that will do you and your family the least amount of harm. It doesn’t get any more objective than that.

7 thoughts on “America – The Land of Subjectivity

  1. Wow Marty, that was more truth about politicians than I have read or heard in a long time. It would be nice to actually witness a politician that speaks the truth during and election campaign just once in my lifetime. The sad truth is if that ever happened, they would not stand a chance of winning because most american’s I believe would not like the truth.

    1. Jesse, most Americans don’t want to know, or think about the fact that this country has spending problem. And did you notice that neither candidate discussed housing? That’s because it’s a political hot potato. The truth is the solution to housing will really hurt the middle class voter and neither Romney or Obama can afford to alienate these people.

      1. Yes I noticed. I agree that the truth about housing will hurt the middle class but I am in the middle class and I say most real solution are going to hurt at some point because they are going to DEMAND changes in everyone’s behaviors.

  2. Hi Marty,

    Loved your take!! Can’t agree more.

    The only thing I can add is how funny it is that so many people think the President, past, present or future, actually have any real impact on our economy as a whole. When I say President what I really mean is Government.

    Yes, they do keep things in check and they do have some impact on a small level but ultimately, there really is no such thing as the perfect answer regarding how an economy should be structured. All economic structures have their flaws and all eventually fail. Once they fail, they begin a recovery.

    The only effect government has on these economies is at what rate those cycles peak and valley.

    Yes, for those out there who disagree, the government could have lessened the extent of our most recent collapse with a little more oversight, ok, a lot more oversight, but now we’ve gone overboard and currently have too much oversight.

    Ultimately, the economy will recover when the people stop listening to the news telling them the sky is falling and go out and buy that new fridge, or take a trip to the movies or dinner or maybe that new pair of shoes. It’s consumer confidence in all aspects of our economy that gets our engines revving and ultimately putting everyone back to work.

    My point, and going along with Marty? STOP LISTENING TO THE CRAP ON THE TELEVISION!!!

    The shame is, it doesn’t matter who gets elected, we are in the beginning of our nations recovery right now and whoever wins the election, will get credit for something that was going to happen anyway.

    It’s no different than Obama getting the negative press for our current situation. I don’t care what he would have or could have done to fix things. Even if he had done everything perfectly, once that freight train of bad decisions was set in motion, 4 years of corrective action is like trying to stop that freight train by putting a VW Bug on the tracks.

    Ultimately, it’s up to us to pull through this, not the government.

    Sincerely yours,


    1. Ken, thanks for the additional insight. I couldn’t agree with you more. Clinton got too much credit for the good economy during his administration and Bush got too much blame for the recession. I’ve read some people argue that if the government wouldn’t have intervened in 2008 the whole economic system would have collapsed. I would argue that it’s government intervention (corporate welfare) that created the problem in the first place. Thanks for the comment.

      1. Hi Marty,

        I would have to agree about the intervention preventing our econimic system collapse and although the government did have a lot to do with the intervention, it wasn’t really as a direct result from the President himself but instead his economic advisors telling him this is what needs to happen.

        If you want to get a very good feel for what transpired between the government as well as the banks I would highly recommend watching the documentary called “Inside Job” narrarated by Matt Damon.

        There was also an HBO Movie put out (Fiction), that also gives the average joe an idea of what happened and what might have happened had they not interveened called “Too Big To Fail” The HBO movie might have been a little lienient on some of the real life characters motives, but, the way things actually transpired where probably pretty close to reality.

        1. Ken, I’ve seen Inside Job. I actually own it on blu-ray. I also read Too Big To Fail. Good stuff. Thanks again for the comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *