Among the many problems with politics in this country is that it's impossible to be sure people in the public eye do good deeds because they genuinely believe in making a difference, rather than just genuinely believe in looking like they do.
As usual, it's probably neither one nor the other, but that's what makes it so hard to tell what kind of person an elected official really is.
Case in point: the reactions of the two presumptive presidential nominees to the recent floods in the Midwest. McCain is in Iowa where the worst of the flooding occurred, while Obama filled sandbags in Illinois.
As politicians, it's great that they care, both from the altruistic and the self-serving standpoints. The question is: Which standpoint are the candidates operating from?
Obama is an Illinois senator, so it makes sense that he should be focused on helping his state avert disasters. McCain, as a prominent senator, has a responsibility to many areas of the country, and in that capacity, his presence in Iowa could be seen as admirable.
But we're living in an age where every action is a photo opportunity for those in the public eye, and the actions that truly help don't always photograph well.
Was Obama filling some sandbags worth having a bunch of camera crews and Secret Servicemen in the way of volunteers trying to save their homes? It makes McCain look good to be in Iowa listening to the flood victims, but is he doing more than just being there?
It troubles me that I can't be sure if these men are in the Midwest to help the flood victims or to help themselves, because the answer could tell me whether I want them in charge of my country.
Appearances have become so important in our decision-making that when it comes to politics we can trust appearances even less than we can everywhere else in life.
Even if Obama knew he could help more by keeping out of the volunteers' way, he really had no choice but to go fill sandbags if he wanted to be president.
Even if McCain knew he might just be standing there useless in Iowa, he still had to go.
We've made it so that what a candidate does while in the spotlight doesn't tell us anything anymore. Shame on us for doing it, and shame on them for letting us.
But what this means is that if we want to make the right choice when we vote, we have to work even harder to find out who it really is that we're granting power.
We have to ask questions we're not sure how to answer about candidates' behavior and what it really means. We have to learn again to see a candidate as more than the sum of their photo ops.
Let's hope for the sake of the people in the Midwest, who really don't have time for this, that we figure it out soon.
Emma Breysse is a journalism senior. Reach her at: emma.breysse@asu.edu.
