The controversy surrounding the President Clinton - Monica Lewinsky affair was one example of he said she said, replete with facts, fiction, inaccurate stories and lies, with battle lines drawn and opinions formed by what one may have thought was truth. The never-ending and often heated back and forth of political debate is fueled by our belief in a political party, a politician, specific issues or a general world view. Our individual opinions dictate the manner and degree of participation in which we become involved, or not, in the political process.

In many cases family tradition and/or what is considered a social custom weigh heavy in one’s decision in matters of politics. In terms of adolescent development, peer pressure is the common phrase used to indicate the crowd mentality of groups, voting in a certain pattern. One may say “well so what, it has worked for me thus far”. Before you affirm that thought, consider the words of your proxy.

Social media has become all the rage. We can tell the world how much we like or dislike the service at a restaurant, inform thousands of the wonderful attractions at the local zoo, and share details of personal activities such as weddings, birthdays, and graduations once limited to a small intimate circle of family and close friends. This same medium is also the venue in which the interpretation of public policy is deliberated. With millions of active individual user accounts on the internet, the number of viewpoints on any given issue will equal that total. With such a divergence of thought, can the truth ever be discerned?

Indeed it can. The same medium which causes such confusion is also the arbiter of fact concerning political discourse. The ease and frequency one uses the web to disseminate last night’s party antics should be channeled in becoming informed as to the shenanigans of today’s politicians.

The best place for this type of unfiltered and untainted presentation is on C-SPAN. Watching the floor speeches and committee hearings allows the viewer to make a decision on any issue based on the actual words of the speaker and contrast those words to the effect of the actual legislation. It is also possible to learn what, if any, special interest groups may influence the decision of a legislator to the detriment of your interest. Here, the emperor’s clothes are off.

a)     For example: is a House debate on Immigration Reform.

b) covers the results of the investigation into The IRS targeting conservative political groups.

c) is the opening statement from Jonathan Gruber and his role in developing the ACA (Obamacare).

These are but a few of the endless and voluminous archives available to any who may choose to view them. Today, modern communication techniques eliminate the excuse of one not being informed, as to the intricacies of modern day lawmaking.

While these videos may not garner a ‘two thumbs up’ from the avid movie-goer, the on screen performer(s) in many cases deserve the industry’s top award. Hollywood sound stages and exotic tropical locations are not the backdrop for the thespian in this case. Their best presentation is best seen on the campaign trail during an election cycle and in the halls of congress once elected. What then are “we the people”, the true power brokers of our civic destiny to do? Demand truth in advertising, lest we grovel and cringe at the mercy of high production value, and then bestow the title of leader to those who by virtue of their own words distort reality.