Nowhere in the world is mainstream discourse less critical of Israel than in the United States, and that includes Israel.

Only in the United States could a mild representation of events inside the Occupied Territories get a former president openly labeled an anti-Semite. Only in the United States could a Jewish scholar of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who had family (some surviving, some perishing) in the Holocaust be called a Holocaust denier. Only in the United States could a reporter be gambling his or her career writing a piece that comes anywhere near the tone or depiction of state critiques published within Israel’s own Haaretz newspaper.

So what should I write about? If I possessed any breaking news or shocking information coming out of Gaza, would it even matter?

I worry that we are so saddled with the assumptions of American (and thus its allies’) exceptionalism, a mere challenge to the official story would be futile.

So instead, I will offer an exercise in context and a few questions helpful to digest this official line.

First of all, discount the relevance of all so-called “official sources.” Such sources are allowed a voice for one purpose, and that is to preserve an acceptable public image. Can you even imagine an official spokesperson (on any side) consciously saying anything harmful to the interests of his or her government?

Aside from deciphering such interests, these “official sources” are best used for counting. And by that, I mean counting how many official sources (including political pundits) are represented on one side (remember, allies count as well) in contrast to those represented on the other, not to mention the order in which these sources appear and the space they are allowed. Throw these findings on a seesaw, and we get a picture of who’s got a better shot at writing history.

Such results are no surprise. As long as Israel remains one of our greatest allies, its version of events will always be given, at very least, the benefit of the doubt.

This is evident not only in the space given “official” accounts, but in the language used to characterize those accounts.

For instance, on December 29th the Associated Press lead off a story by describing the targets of the Israeli assault on Gaza as “symbols of Hamas Power.” As the story was picked up throughout the mainstream media, so was this description. Some even used it in the headline.

Attributed to no one, such descriptions are offered as assumptions. And assumptions imply a certain amount of truth or legitimacy. When Israel tells the world it is in a “war to the bitter end” against Hamas (and the U.S. publicly offers its blessing), characterizing these bombing targets as “symbols of Hamas power” implies that all such targets are justified.

This of course leaves the burden to prove otherwise on the Palestinians and anyone else who challenges such assumptions.

So for the sake of this piece, let’s just take a minute and challenge one such assumption.

One of these “symbols of Hamas power” was a university. One of the areas hit was a women’s building. Do we accept this as being a legitimate target?

Israel says this university was responsible for research and development of Hamas weapons. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. The bigger question is, “Does it matter?”

If the Israeli government is telling us the truth, does this justify the bombing? If it does, then we must ask whether this makes universities in Israel that conduct weapons-related research legitimate targets for bombing. For that matter, what about MIT and other major universities within the United States? Would we accept these being described as symbols of government power and thus justified for targeting in war?

Furthermore, when have “symbols” of power ever been legitimate targets in the first place? One way Hamas rose to power was in offering social welfare services. Does that make their clinics and food distribution centers “symbols” of power? Are they also fair game?

What about police stations? Early on, these were some of the heaviest hit. Characterized as security forces, many police officers (some of whom had literally just been sworn in) were thrown into the rhetorical pile of legitimate dead.

Do we not distinguish between military and civil service? Would we see our own non-military “symbols of power” as legitimate targets?

What about Mosques? Do we consider our places of worship “symbols of power” justified as military targets? Israel says that they were used to store munitions. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. I guess we’ll just have to assume they were telling us the truth.

It’s obviously not serious enough for the United States to demand an investigation. It’s merely enough that the “official source” says it.

In the 2006 Lebanon War, the United States didn’t demand an independent investigation when Israel killed over 1,000 people (mostly civilians), over three hundred of which were children. Nor did the United States demand an independent investigation when Israel knowingly struck a UN compound. This list of “official” oops’s goes on and on. Yet never do we demand an independent investigation.

And why, one might ask, should the United States be demanding anything? Well, for starters, our Arms Export Control Act sets narrowly defined circumstances for use of U.S. arms. Since we supply both military aid to Israel as well as the actual weaponry being used in its current operation, it’s our responsibility under law to strictly monitor such use.

One can only wonder how different events might be if Israel believed the United States might actually enforce the Arms Export Control Act. Of course, Israel knows that if the official version of events gets a bit too hard to stomach, they can always fall back on their intentions.

As another perk of being a U.S. ally, it is assumed Israel (as do we) always has the noblest of intentions. And, luckily, intentions are not that easy to prove.

Or are they? As Noam Chomsky points out, intentions can and should be measured by anticipated consequences.

Is it enough for Israel to say that it is doing everything in its power to minimize civilian casualties but Hamas has military installations among residential neighborhoods? Or do we apply the burden of anticipated consequences?

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Israel’s official version on this one is fully accurate. Does it matter that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and that bombing almost anywhere assures civilian casualties? Does it matter that we would never allow police in our own country to shoot hundreds of bullets into a crowd in order to take down a dangerous suspect? One of the things that makes drive-by shootings that much more heinous is their anticipated consequences.

Furthermore, the location of Hamas military installations is not the least bit unique. Civilian areas in the United States are littered with military related buildings and infrastructure. I personally used to live within a few hundred feet of the War College in Pennsylvania.

Would Israel characterize Tel Aviv as a more appropriate target than Sderot for rocket fire simply because of its military installations?

These questions are very basic ways of offering context, something that is often quite lacking in such reports and analysis.

Certainly human life deserves such context. Certainly the lives of our own children would warrant such questions, if not full-fledged investigations. Certainly the lives of our innocent would be worth more than just assumptions, more than being casually dismissed by “official sources.”

Israel and the United States both say that Hamas is the problem. Does it matter that Israel had an early hand in allowing Hamas to court power? Does it matter that the United States forced the elections that brought Hamas to head the government? Does it even matter that Hamas was democratically elected?

Israel says that it was Hamas that broke the truce. Does it matter if the rocket fire started after six Palestinians were killed on November 4th? Does it matter that Hamas offered to extend the truce, including a proposed ten-year truce? Does it matter that during the truce, Israel increased its eighteen-month stranglehold on Gaza, bringing aid organizations to call it a humanitarian crisis?

Israel says that it hasn’t occupied Gaza since 2005. Does it matter that it has rigidly controlled its land, sea, and airspace effectively making it one big open-air prison? Does it matter that it withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in tax and customs revenue due the Palestinians from Israel’s control over the ports? Does it matter that Israel has denied fuel, food, and medicine to the collective Gaza population during its blockade?

Does it matter that Israel will not allow foreign journalists in to report what is happening? Does it matter that, like in Lebanon, Israel may have had such attacks planned for over six months? Does it matter that the targets in Gaza hit as of the time I will have submitted this piece, just to name a few, include (according to the International Middle East Media Center) police stations, a greenhouse, a charity office, municipal buildings, a fuel station, a medical storage facility, a medical clinic, a hospital, refugee camps, a TV station, mosques, a university, a fisherman’s dock, apartment buildings, personal homes, a sports club, a dairy, a fuel truck, an ambulance, a picnic park, and different schools (including a UN school).

Certainly, many will suggest my own bias in that I have focused on Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and not Hamas rocket fire into Israel. Such rocket fire, however, does not suffer from a lack of coverage. Nor is anyone in the mainstream justifying rocket fire into Israel.

Instead, both language and omission are skillfully used to either excuse or gloss over the actions of our ally.

Like all teams, we portray our guys as the good guys and their guys as the bad guys. The world, however, is not as simple as good and evil. Humanity is more than just us and them.

The golden rule teaches us to put ourselves in the shoes of others. This forces us to ask, “If this situation were reversed, would we stand for such?”

If we swapped out Israel’s name with Iran and the Palestinians with any of our strategic allies, is there any doubt that this very minute we would be beating our chests and calling for war (if not already committed to it)?

Moreover, the golden rule teaches us not just to put ourselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, but to imagine them wearing ours. In other words, what example are the Palestinians left with? How do we expect a generation to grow up under the brutal violence of an illegal occupation and embrace non-violence? It’s as hypocritical as encouraging African-Americans during the civil rights movement to be non-violent in the face of not just physical violence, but the mental and spiritual violence of Jim Crow.

I, myself, support Palestinian non-violent resistance. Of course no one just shot a missile into my living room, killing my children. Whatever principles we expect from those who challenge us, we must also abide by such standards.

Now does this mean that I believe Hamas is a virgin in all of this? Absolutely not. While the Palestinians possess the legal right to resist occupation under international law, such right is not without moral or legal limits. The taking of an Israeli civilian’s life is a crime, as is the attempt to take such a life. Israeli children are no less precious than Palestinian children.

But they are also no more precious.

And even if you are immoral enough to differ, you must still see the irony in supporting such attacks.

Bombs do not explode peace dust. They explode revenge. Israel’s “war to the bitter end” will no more bring safety to Israelis than the so-called war on terror has reduced terrorism. This is not the least bit controversial. So why do it?

Does it matter that elections in Israel are right around the corner? Does it matter that Barack Obama will come into office inheriting government approval of such attacks? Does it matter that Israel has longed to redeem itself from the failed military ground offensives of the 2006 Lebanon War?

Does any of this matter? Seriously. Do any of the questions I am asking matter at all? Are they not even worthy of consideration?

If not, then ask yourself, “What would it take for us to say that Israel has gone too far? When the ratio of dead is a hundred to one? A thousand to one? Ten thousand to one? When every human rights organization in the world says it’s a massacre, a crime against humanity, a genocide? When a nuke is dropped?”

Many may think I have gone too far in my questions. I think it’s quite the contrary. The questions and examples in this piece have been mild, very mild.

And yet I admit, in this current media climate I have struggled with how to approach this issue. When I spoke out against Israel’s actions in Lebanon while co-hosting a local radio program in 2006, I was scared that I might be viewed as anti-Semitic or anti-American or pro-terrorist. When I sat down to write this piece, I experienced some of the same feelings.

And yet what am I calling for? I am merely calling for questions. And why am I calling for them? Because I sincerely care about the future of Palestinian and Israeli children. Because I know that they will never be truly safe until a resolution to the occupation is agreed upon, one that is not shot through with violence and soaked in blood.

Now, maybe it’s true that some of my own questions are charged with certain assumptions. Maybe time will offer me facts that contradict my own understanding and portrayal of events. If that becomes the case, I will welcome this greater understanding.

In the meantime I’m in the same boat as you, waiting for new information. My hope is that, as we wade through the mainstream discourse, we will not automatically steer clear from information that rocks the boat, that we will not be afraid to look outside the usual suspects for competent and courageous voices, that we will not shy away from asking questions.

For helpful examples of such courageous voices and a far more eloquent and knowledgeable balance to our exceptionalist news norm, I encourage anyone to read the statements of the UN Special Rapporteur to the Palestinian territories Richard Falk or the Institute for Policy Studies’ Phyllis Bennis. Read the perspectives of Palestinian and Palestinian-American author/activists like Mustafa Barghouti, Omar Barghouti, Ramzy Baroud, and Ali Abunimah. Read the reporting of Haaretz journalists Gideon Levy and Amira Hass. Read the analysis of scholars like Ilan Pappe and Norman Finkelstein (as well as the late Edward Said). Read the accounts of international journalists like Robert Fisk and John Pilger. Read the commentary of Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald or Ben-Gurion University’s Neve Gordon. Listen to Dennis Kucinich’s appeal for a UN investigation into Israel’s attack on Gaza. Check out the Free Gaza Movement or Gush Shalom. Check out the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights or Israel’s B’tselem. Check out any recommendation from the Institute for Public Accuracy.

Or don’t.

I guess the question you really have to ask is, “Does it matter?”

As I am writing these words ground troops are in Gaza, rockets are still being fired into Israel, and the ratio of dead is nearly a hundred to one. I can only hope that by the time you read this, a ceasefire will have been reached.

I bring this up in light of the ongoing demonization of the left. I bring this up to give those critics of today’s left pause.

Before they became national heroes, those advocates of equality and solidarity were demonized as well. One need only look back and see which direction the staunchest criticism was coming from and how they were described by the powerful interests they threatened.

Ironically, the very same people that would have been denouncing such courage back then have now tried to whitewash their stories and claim these heroes as their own.

If these heroes become generic, then their struggles become generic. The victories of the past no longer represent a long tradition of left struggle, but a wound that time simply healed through gradual change handed down from the powers that be only as they saw fit. Indeed, many of such stories have now been told in a light that actually gives the right credit for gains they fought tooth and nail against.

All of which illustrates that when the right adopts these same heroes, it is not only ironic but quite useful.

Stealing such hard won gains while defining the left through demonization leaves little attraction for present movement building. If for no other reason, we on the left must make sure that we never lose our heroes.

This is not to say that we should advocate hero worship. Hero worship is merely another form of hierarchy. But rather we should remind the world that these people were human just like you and I. Inspired by the potential they saw in others, they themselves insisted upon their own potential.

But there is another reason. We owe it to these courageous souls not to let their stories be co-opted. To allow the world to forget what they were fighting for would be no less than betrayal.

If they weren’t afraid to stand up to the right, neither should we be afraid to stand up to the right and set the record straight.

We must remind the right that our heroes were not the same. You may try to share ours, but we will never share yours.

Yours were heroes of power, often heroes of violence. Our heroes were those who stole power only to share it with those least fortunate. This is what made them left, and this is what we must never forget.

All this bothers me. Yet I’m far more bothered by what I see as talk radio’s greater mission. And that is to destroy any sense of real debate in our society. Issues that deserve hours to explore great nuance and detail have been reduced to three minute yelling sessions in between commercials. Guests raising important points are to be shouted down. All opponents are to be insulted. Callers with irrefutable facts are to be hung up on after a few seconds, only to have their words distorted and ridiculed until the next break. Instead of serving its potential function as a vehicle for democracy, the public airwaves have been used to turn our national and local dialogue into something more resembling the Jerry Springer Show.

And it’s not just talk radio. The 24 hour news channels have adopted many of the same tactics. According to Jeff Cohen, an executive told Joe Scarborough when he was starting his show on MSNBC, “If you let someone talk for more than seven seconds on your show without interruption, then you are a failure.”

Even the major networks see it fit to take on the sound bite mentality when discussing complex world events. When asked why Noam Chomsky was never on Nightline, Jeff Greenfield commented, “It is about as sensible to book somebody who will take eight minutes to give an answer as it is to book somebody who doesn’t speak English.” Chomsky later noted that Greenfield had hit the nail on the head, commenting that “the beauty of concision… is that you can only repeat conventional thoughts.”

In other words, if you can’t fit your argument on a bumper sticker, you don’t deserve to be in the discussion.

The reason for this is fairly obvious. An uninformed people are easier to control. They’re easier to sell to, easier to mislead, easier to recruit. All you have to do is trick them into believing they have all the facts, and the rest is ventriloquism.

Am I saying that this is the intention of people like Jeff Greenfield? Absolutely not. But intention doesn’t always translate into consequence. And the handful of media owners in our country, as well as their industry friends, are more than happy with such consequence.

So I say forget about them. In fact, shame on us for ever expecting the powerful to allow us to think freely in the first place. It’s time we bring back the debate. A grassroots revival to awaken us from our intellectual slumber.

It could start with as little as a website. Divided up according to issue and/or geography, debates could be hosted on any number of topics: bills before Congress, major court rulings, current events. Not limited to national and international politics, separate categories could be reserved for more regional and local issues. Most of all, the site would provide a forum for fleshing out issues the mainstream news and talk shows won’t touch.

Not only could debates involve more than two people, they could involve more than just elites and so-called experts. Furthermore, dialogue could range from the fundamental disagreements of political opposites to differences of vision among ideological allies.

Debate format would be agreed upon by the participants and could vary from fixed to informal, the only requirement being that participants give and be given respect and fair time for their contributions. Focus should be kept on the issue, with personal attacks strictly prohibited. The point of such a project would be to give an alternative to the sensational distractions posed by the mainstream media as democratic discourse.

Efforts for promotion could start with guerilla marketing. In addition to websites like Youtube and GoogleVideo, face-to-face debates could be taped for download or distribution to local public access cable channels and viewing parties around the country, not to mention C-Span, Dish Network, and FreeSpeech TV. Added to call-in debates, these programs could provide material for college radio, low-power FM, and internet radio stations. Lastly, prolonged e-mail exchanges would allow for a much longer and in-depth debate format to be read in transcripts.

But why stop there? Why not find bands to play concerts after debates, so to bring out more people? Why not host debate nights at churches, libraries, and community centers? Hell, why not throw debate festivals and conventions for thousands to attend?

In addition to such a project being a great way to make us more aware of different perspectives, it would also assist in improving our critical thinking skills. In fact, I would propose an entire section of the website be devoted to exposing the tricks of false arguments. Things like statistic manipulation, non sequitur and circular logic, deceptive analogies and half-truths. The more skilled an audience is in recognizing distortion and dishonesty, the more glaring the truth will be, and the more stark the credibility (or lack of) of those participating in the debate.

Because isn’t that what we want to get to? Who is telling us the truth? Who is giving us the most honest picture of reality? Equally important, which perspective is this picture coming from? Is it coming from the powerful or is it coming from the powerless? Is it coming from the victim, or is it coming from the villain? Which perspective do we, as responsible citizens, want to view reality from?

See, not only have our mainstream media outlets been guilty of demolishing real debate, they have continued year after year to give voice to some of our most duplicitous analysts and commentators.

So I say let’s get the privileged pundits out of their comfortable network chairs and into the ring. Let’s see how they fare in real showdowns. A format where they can’t rest on their charisma or oratorical finesse. I’m talking about substance. And when claims are disputed, a request would be made for source or documentation, all of which would be exhibited on the website in a subsequent follow-up meant to spotlight the validity of certain controversial statements.

Moreover, after each debate a tally could be kept on how many mainstream media outlets invite that specific debate participant on the air. So if you thought someone disgraced him or herself in a particular exchange, then you can also see which programs reward such disgrace. Conversely, maybe those credible voices not always permitted the same air time could start demanding a bit more attention.

In any case, such a project is needed. Who’s going to run it? I don’t know. Maybe it could be a joint effort of volunteers similar to that of Indymedia and Wikipedia. Who’s going to fund it? I don’t know. I’m sure there’s enough grant money out there to get it started.

I do know that we cannot leave our democratic discourse to the current media demagogues. We cannot allow executives and advertisers to plant flags in our brains. Without an accurately informed public, democracy is worthless. And when our intellectual diets become corporate approved, it’s merely the clever leading the blind.

Answer: The loan shark wants his money on time.

Now some will claim that there are many other differences, namely blackmail and threat of violence. But exactly which entity are they referring to?

Isn’t the menace to one’s credit score or the garnishment of wages just legally dressed extortion? Moreover, the growing amount of suicides attributed to crushing debt indicates the psychological violence credit cards can most definitely inflict.

This of course is where my libertarian friends would stop the press and begin condescending to me about personal responsibility. Upon which, I’m always left scratching my head.

Why would a libertarian stand up for credit cards? If the argument is one of personal responsibility, then how responsible is it to buy something when you don’t actually possess the money to pay for it? For larger ticket items, there are loans and payment plans available. Credit cards, however, provide the ability to take out multiple loans per day for whatever item catches your eye whether or not you have a dime to your name.

Luckily, personal responsibility didn’t come to this dance alone. Ladies and gentleman, I introduce to you, personal freedom. That’s right. What would a good libertarian be without an argument for liberty?

And so it goes: As long as you acknowledge the responsibility to pay this money back, credit cards grant you the personal freedom to buy whatever your heart desires. But again, why should you be free to instantly buy anything you want when you don’t have the money. Because if you can answer me that, I know a lot of broke people waiting on a surgery right about now.

Furthermore, if the banks are just throwing around all this free money, then why not give me a million dollars? The answer of course is that I couldn’t pay it back. But that’s not exactly what the credit card companies are counting on anyway. These companies count on you paying a little bit at a time for the rest of your life. People who actually pay their balances in full are called “deadbeats.” So if the name of the game is paying on but not paying off, then I could do the same thing with a million dollars.

College students without jobs are able to get credit lines as high as $6,000. So you tell me. How is a freshman with tuition, room, board, books, and a 16 hour class load supposed to pay anything off?

Once again, the business model has nothing at all to do with us being responsible. On the contrary, it’s about us being irresponsible. The big profits are made by special fees and inflated interest when payments are either late or missed altogether.

And forget loan sharks. The minimum payment is designed to keep you paying long enough that you could literally pay for an item ten times over. The money isn’t in the merchant fees. The money is in the trap.

Folks, this isn’t even controversial. The trap is the business model. That’s why most lawyers can’t even comprehend the standard credit card agreement.

You can talk all day long about personal responsibility and how guns don’t kill people — people kill people. But in this context, what you’re really saying is that land mines don’t kill people — people not watching where they’re walking kill themselves.

Seriously, their argument is that as long as someone knows there are land mines in a field, he or she should have the freedom to go play in that field. Pay no attention to the person who says that the field should be cleared of land mines before anyone goes out to play. That type of statement could only come from the staunchest enemy of liberty.

But then again, what if someone doesn’t want to play in a field full of land mines? Well, the libertarian would tell that person that he or she has the freedom not to go into the field. Never mind that in today’s growing credit card culture, it’s nearly impossible to escape going into the field. Furthermore, if the mine field keeps growing until it grows all the way around you, you can thank your lucky stars that you live in a country where you have the freedom to stand perfectly still.

Now I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be responsible. I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying look at the business model. Look at the advertising, look at the availability. Look at the anticipated consequences. We’re not talking about debit cards or old school charge cards like American Express. We’re talking about a trap set to lure people into a form of indentured servitude. And I just want to know why the trap is given priority.

What kind of a society do we live in where it is more important for there to be traps than for me to be free from traps?

Because folks, we’re not talking about a couple of people here and there making one too many stupid mistakes and falling into a hole. We’re talking about a set trap. We’re talking about a calculated nationwide campaign. We’re talking about creating a culture that will produce enormous amounts of revenue. You know as well as I do that these record profits don’t happen simply by accident. They are the fruits of a successful business plan. And if it means that a whole section of the population loses, then that’s just the price of freedom.

And don’t get me wrong. I’m not some enemy of freedom. In fact, I’m actually in favor of a system that gives people the liberty to buy whatever they want without having any money up front. It’s called layaway.

For decades layaway has taught people discipline and real responsibility while still keeping personal freedom in tact. You learn to sacrifice little by little, you learn to meet deadlines, and you can even change your mind. Unlike with credit cards, you end up with either what you need or what you really want. And best of all, you aren’t in debt.

Naturally though, such an idea must be done away with. As retail outlets get in on the credit card action (in other words, setting the trap), layaway is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Strangely enough, so is the middle class.

So let’s ask again.

Question: What’s the difference between a loan shark and a credit card company?

Answer: A broken leg heals faster.

There’s just one problem with this analogy. We don’t take politics even half as seriously as we do sports.

Imagine turning on ESPN and watching commentators predict the outcome of Sunday’s big game based on who has the most handsome quarterback or whose kicker is cheating on their spouse. Imagine tuning into a commentator on sports radio explaining the chances of one team winning based on the fashion of that team’s uniform or the personality of their coach. To serious sports fans, this kind of analysis would be too much to bear.

Not so in the world of politics. In any given election season, such trivial issues are the rule and not the exception. In fact, superficial coverage has become so commonplace, the average voter is lucky to truly understand the policy stances of any major candidate, much less the independent candidates.

To the sports fan, strategy and performance really mean something. Political strategy, on the other hand, is the art of beating your opponent while avoiding any real performance.

Boxing journalists decry fighters who spend all their time running around the ring, never engaging in any real action. Political pundits, on the other hand, relish in playing the part of a boxing referee who breaks up the action every time any real contact occurs.

While I could go on and on about these differences, it might be more useful to propose a better analogy. Rather than soil the image of our beloved sports, I would suggest it is more appropriate to compare our politics to the world of professional wrestling.

Now I know that I’m not the first person to make this connection. But that may be for good reason. Anyone familiar with this particular field of entertainment can spot the similarities a mile away.

One of the most important parts of a professional wrestling match is the buildup. For many, the trash talk and the antics outside the ring are as much a part of the experience as the fight itself. Wrestlers come out for interviews, displaying great passion and intensity. They throw out all these clever one-liners, and the next day everyone is running around quoting them to their friends.

As in any good show, half the work is in selling the fight. With this in mind, the promoters are looking not just for athletes. They’re looking for professional actors. A successful candidate must be able to convince the public of their worthiness as an opponent and have the charisma to make fans root for them.

While their marketability is the unique personality injected into their lines, the bulk of the script has been written by someone else. While these dressed up warriors may do battle in the ring, they’re ultimately all part of the same acting troupe.

Sound familiar? Well, that’s just the beginning of the analogy.

Political candidates are careful to avoid in-depth policy discussion like wrestlers are careful to avoid serious injury. The finesse in pulling off such moves without getting hurt or tripped up is quite a sight to see.

Honest straightforward answers are sidestepped in the same manner a wrestler stomps on the mat when he’s punching an opponent. Strangely enough, everyone in the audience knows it wasn’t a real punch but goes along just the same.

But is it really that strange? I often wonder if people are most fascinated with the craft of it all. When you think about it, it’s not much different from a stage play. The practice and rehearsing that must go into such skillful deception is all really quite impressive.

In a world where the first and last answer to every question is “let the market sort it out,” politics is a lot like wrestling in that it is all about giving the people what they want. And what, you might ask (or rather our elites have asked), do people want?

Well, at a wrestling event, you may be for someone or you may be against them, but in the end what you really want is a good show. Even if your favorite wrestler didn’t win, you can still go home feeling satisfied.

That, in a sense, is what our democracy has become. The people behind the scenes try to put on a good show, so that if your candidate doesn’t win you can still go home feeling satisfied (or at least pacified) for showing up and taking part.

I know this all may sound very tongue in cheek, but the cynicism in such an analogy is quite warranted. For example, when wrestlers are seen cheating during a match, fans don’t go out and tear up the place because they think it’s unfair. And why? Because it’s all part of the show.

So what happens when you have two consecutive elections where irrefutable evidence of fraud and voter disenfranchisement arises? Not only will the media not cover it, but the very candidates who have a legitimate challenge to the results refuse to even bring it up.

And you wonder why people are so cynical? You wonder why people don’t vote? Well, maybe it’s the same reason why wrestling fans don’t riot in the streets (as testosterone-driven as such matches are) after the champion loses the title. That’s because they know there’s nothing they can do about it. It was all part of the show.

Now am I saying that our democracy is as fake as a professional wrestling match and that all elections are fixed? Absolutely not. But this is where the analogy gets tricky.

Sure, you may not know the outcome in wrestling, but someone does. Moreover, even if the vote was fair in an election, the big winners are already set in stone. And just like in the world of professional wrestling, the big winners are those who sign the checks.

See, even though the people who’ve paid for the campaigns may not necessarily know who’s going to win the election, they still know the outcome. In other words, they know what the public doesn’t know.

When a wrestler gets his hand raised at the end of a match, we all know it’s phony. Indeed, it’s not like we really know anything. We just know we’ve been entertained, and now it’s time to go home.

Likewise, at the end of the election, the feeling is that we’ve all been entertained and now it’s time to go home. The only ones who know that it’s all been phony are those who paid to put on the show.

And by phony, I mean that they understand that when a candidate gets his or her hand raised, that’s not the end of the fight. That’s still part of the buildup. The real fight hasn’t even happened yet. The real fight is what happens after the election (after everyone else has gone home). The real fight is about policy. And I think we all know whose hand usually gets raised at the end of that match.

The problem with the analogy is that a lot of people think of election day as the main event. Yet voting, in a way, is more like buying tickets for which particular fight you’d like to see. Again, the real fight happens after the election. Voting is merely the last part of the buildup to decide who’s even going to be in the fight.

In fact, the winner of the election is more like a judge or referee, primarily there to decide who gets the most points.

The real fight is between those who pay for their salaries and those who pay for their campaigns. And it doesn’t take a political scientist to extrapolate that politicians may not necessarily be in it for the salary.

Again, I’m not suggesting that all of politics is a puppet show. Hell, even wrestlers have the freedom to improvise once in a while. When there are hundreds of policy fights, it’s inevitable that there are going to be many instances in which your elected officials will proudly and accurately represent your best interests. This of course is in their free time when they haven’t been contracted by their promoters to work the fight.

Although I, myself, believe wholeheartedly in voting, I understand why some do not. For the same reason many don’t watch wrestling, they believe the outcome is already decided and see no point in just being part of the spectacle.

Similarly, I know a lot of ordinary voters who dismiss wrestling as folly, unable to grasp why people would sit around making believe they’re watching a real fight. Acknowledging that it’s less messy than actually getting into a real fight, the wrestling fan might counter the voter by asking why he or she is not an activist.

While wrestling is about the spectacle of a fight and not a real fight, some might say that our elections are about the spectacle of democracy and not real democracy.

With no end to the mockery in sight, it’s no wonder why some have lost hope and simply refuse to buy tickets. Neither is it a wonder that others only see hope in tearing up the place.

The one thing I’m certain of is that if we’re ever going to find a new analogy, it’s going to take more than just greater attendance at the ticket booth. If we expect to see real democracy in this country, it’s going to require that we stay after the elections and fight.