The Problem With the Truth

Over the past two weeks, I have found myself -- consciously or unconsciously -- shying away from politics, and spending less time trying to immerse myself in current political news. I don't know why; perhaps I reached my breaking-point with the horse race; perhaps I became numb to the repetitive nature of the political culture; perhaps I've just been too busy. I don't have a good answer for this question.

But one thing that peaked my interest this week is the "uproar" within the presidential campaign about whether or not a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would benefit McCain or Obama. In an interview with Fortune Magazine, McCain advisor Charlie Black stated that a terrorist attack on the United States "would be a big advantage" for John McCain. And everyone can now stop acting like they are shocked and appalled at the statement.

Should Mr. Black have said what he said? Absolutely not. Was he correct in what he said? You bet he was.

The upcoming general election will allow the American public to chose between that which is comfortable (Sen. McCain) or that which is new (Sen. Obama). A black president is probably a situation that many people are not comfortable with. Therefore, does anyone really doubt that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would cause more people to lean toward sticking with what is comfortable? Change is difficult for many people, and people are less likely to make a significant change is they are scared. And furthermore, the majority of the public views Republicans more favorably than Democrats when it comes to national security -- don't ask my why. It must be that red is a more confrontational color.

The McCain campaign and Mr. Black have come under fire for a statement of truth. And this is why in the current political culture, the truth is very often kept quite. And that is a problem.