What's Missing From Political Discussion - and Why

We've all grown too accustomed to the lack of honesty and candor in American politics. We're used to hearing politicians from both parties make comments that are almost always predictable, self-serving and "safe." We accept that politicians don't say how they really feel about things.

While Barack Obama has revived some hope and is able to speak more directly about some problems, he, alone, cannot reverse this chronic undercurrent of politicians lacking the will to speak the truth about real issues affecting real people. Obama, too, needs to be more candid.

One tremendous consequence of this undercurrent is that many important issues affecting millions of people simply are not part of the political conversation anymore. Politicians have become so driven by self-interest, cowardice and fear that they do not want to be associated with even raising these subjects.

Consider the following examples of topics that receive far too little attention in Washington D.C. or in state capitals:

• Poverty. Our national leaders never bring up poor people. We hear constantly about the middle class or "middle class tax cuts" - but not about the poorest among us and the crises they deal with - hunger, homelessness, health problems and no money to pay for medical treatment. Over many years now, poverty has become less and less "acceptable" for politicians to raise. In 2008, presidential candidates barely mentioned poverty. Think about it: It has become politically "too risky" to even talk about helping those in most desparate need in our society. That's a sad state of affairs, and, an indictment of our system.

• The real causes of violent crime. Back in the 1960s, people used to discuss the underlying causes of crime and other societal ills. Now, politicians are afraid of being labled as "bleeding-heart liberals" if they try to raise factors like poverty, racism, broken families, poor schools or mental illness. What we hear, instead, is right-wing talk show hosts obsessed with venting against individual criminals like they're animals. Until we address the root causes, how will we reduce crime?

• Our deplorable, failing prison system. All my life, I've read about the indisputable facts showing that most prisons simply do not work. Recidivism is high. Yet, the United States keeps building prisons and incarcerating more people than any civilized country. Putting human beings in cages usually doesn't help "rehabilitate" them, but, it does impair them.

• Problems of inner cities. It's still a familiar dynamic in so many cities: Suburban dwellers drive in and out, leaving behind urban areas where families raise children amidst inexcapable crises - whether it's gang violence, lousy schools, economic deprivation, adult illiteracy and segregation of neighborhoods.

• Gun control. Politicians dropped this topic years ago when critics blasted gun control advocates as being unrealistic and most have taken the "safer" route of voting to allow all kinds of guns to be sold. It disgusts me that during every presidential election - including 2008 - candidates gush about the value of the 2nd Amendment, which is outmoded. Yet, as a proponent of imposing far more controls on the purchase of guns, I have yet to hear anyone present an argument that convinces me that somehow we'd be worse off if less guns are in circulation, thereby less available to use in violent crimes.

• Reducing the military budget. I heard a Congressmen, in a rare moment of candor, recently acknowledge that the US has a nuclear capacity far beyond necessity. The costs of producing weapons systems and maintaining a military presence in many locations, surely, can be reduced. We can adjust our budget to the new realities of the 21st century without sacrificing our security. Will a large enough group of Congressmen argue for such cuts?

• Addressing the Middle East without a pro-Israel bias. Are there any US Representatives or Senators who ever question or criticize the role or actions of Israel in the Middle East conflict? Similarly, do any leaders ever openly defend the legitimate rights and grievances of Palestinians? The complete unwillingness of politicans to discuss the history and current realities of the Middle East without blatantly, blindly favoring Israel -- even when that requires ignoring facts and conditions on the ground - is one of the more depressing, cowardly behaviors in Washington DC.

• Re-examining the Role of the US' Foreign Policy. It seems our leaders are usually afraid to raise topics that involve questioning or criticizing major US decisions and policies impacting other countries. Further, they seem unable or unwilling to consider the rights, perspective, priorities and interests of these other countries and their peoples. It seems - until Obama, anyway - that we've held to the same outmoded, ill-conceived notion that the United States is somehow a "superior" country entitled to more rights to intervene, influence and supersede the rights of other countries to follow their wishes. Reagan spoke of the US supporting "freedom fighters" around the world. Bush used the words "to support democracy" abroad....but, my question is: What gives the US the right to act in an imperialistic role of trying to dominate and disregard other countries? Look at Iraq. To this day, I have not heard a US congressman who dares stand up and discuss the views of Iraqi citizens and people in neighboring countries. How do they feel about the US invading without any jusitification? No, the crazy desire of some neoconservatives here to have a "beachhead" in the Middle East doesn't cut it as a good reason - but you'd never know that from watching the cowardly silence of most US congressmen. Now, I hope Obama doesn't initiate moves in Afganistan or Pakisatan without respecting and involving people who live there.

• Radically changing the campaign finance system. For my whole life, I've been hearing about how we'd all benefit from a completely public campaign finance system. Yet, politicians never stay with this and wrestle it to the ground. If they did, maybe we'd have a system that encourages more honesty among elected officials.

Instead of tackling these tougher, more controversial subjects, what we've seen in recent weeks is Congressmen or Senators regressing to old, partisan attacks. A number of Republicans and right-wing talk show hosts have called Obama and his programs "socialist." Politicians, the media and the public have gotten so cynical that we just accept this "socialist" name-calling when, in fact, we should all stand up and label it as the reckless falsehood that it is. (For Republican extremists: Socialism means the government OWNS the means of production, by the way).

Republicans - again - are whining about the evils of Big Goverment. They offer tax cuts as the solution to everything. Democrats, while at least offering more ideas to help people, are still not candid about acknowledging their mistakes, and, like Republicans, seem predisposed to return to petty, partisan fighting to getting things done.

Maybe they should all start a conversation about how the economic crisis is affecting the poorest people out there. And, if they all lose re-election, wouldn't we all be better off as a result of they're holding that discussion?