Thursday, March 10, 2016


No matter where you look or what you see or hear, some people are trying to make things seem better or different than what they really are. That is the tactic of putting “symbolism” over “substance”.

We see it used everyday, especially in the area of politics. A good example is the announcement that President Obama is going to cut $18 billion from the budget. On the surface, that seems like a very substantial amount of savings (I’m not against cutting waste, in fact, I favor it), but this amount is but ½ of 1% of the total budget he has proposed, which numbers over a trillion dollars of spending. He has hailed it as a major happening, implying that he is on top of extravagant, wasteful government spending. If you believe that, than I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you! That’s symbolism over substance, pure and simple.

Another example of using symbolism over substance, is in the area of climate change or environmental ecology. Some sanctimonious “Greens” and “Earth Firster's” etc., proclaim that they are cutting back on emitting carbon dioxide by driving a hybrid car, and then driving it back home to their multi-million dollar mansions that consumes electric at 20 times the rate of the average homeowner. Al Gore, the global warming guru, fits into this category of using symbolism over substance. He claims that since the icecaps are melting it will cause massive flooding along the coasts , but within the past few years he has built a large house near the Pacific ocean. I guess he should heed his own warning. But alas, he seems to be part of the fraternity of those that say, “Do as I say, not as I do”. Some might label that as hypocrisy at its worst. And it is! He should have gotten the Nobel Prize for duplicity.

Symbolism is used by both political parties to further their agendas, but the substance of what they propose is vague and sometimes non-existent. The “pandering” politicians will tell the citizens what they think the people want to hear, in hopes that the words will move them to vote for him/her on election day. Unfortunately, it must work, otherwise they wouldn’t indulge in the practice

Take the euphemistic acronym EFCA – “Employee Free Choice Act” – which implies that workers at a company will be getting a “free choice” to choose or not to choose their collective bargaining representative. There’s nothing “free” about it. If passed by the Congress and signed by the President, it will deprive the worker of his right to choose his bargaining representative by “secret ballot”, which is one of the foundations of our representative republic. The proponents of this bill, the unions and the legislators who are beholden to the unions, never tell you that. That’s symbolism over substance, and deceitful to boot.

The whole debacle over Obamacare was a good example of how politicians can manipulate the citizenry into believing something that wasn't true. Obama and his minions told us you could keep your health plan, you could keep your doctor, and that a family of four would save $2,500 a year on insurance premiums. All LIES, and a good example of symbolism over substance.

Don’t be fooled by the “snake oil” charlatans who think we are all deaf and dumb fools - let’s reverse it and put substance over symbolism - that’s the American way, or the way it should be. Don’t you agree?

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share


Ira Greenberg said...

The "Frick and Frack" of the Democrat Party, Hillary and Bernie, are claiming that by raising the minimum wage they will bring about less poverty, but if the poor people can't get jobs because the businesses can't afford to hire them, what good is raising the minimum wage? Isn't it better for a young person to be employed at $8 per hour than to be unemployed at $15 per hour? Hillary and Bernie are phony practitioners of symbolism over substance, that's why Trump is getting so much more support than most people thought he would get when he first announced for president.

Chuck Lehmann said...

Commenter Ira Greenberg referred to "Frick and Frack", who were once, Swiss comedy ice skaters in the 40's and early 50's. As used by Mr. Greenberg, it is an English slang term used in two ways. One is to refer to two people so closely associated with each other as to be indistinguishable, the other way is a term of derision for any two people, on par with calling one person a "Bozo" or three people as "Stooges". Mr. Greenberg hit the nail on the head by describing Hillary and Bernie as "Frick and Frack". Congratulations Mr. Greenberg.