Unfortunately as many people look out at the political landscape they are left wondering who they’re truly voting for. Is it the man in the poster, the smooth voice heard reading the teleprompter or the aggressive debater on the stage? Behind a candidates’ name and their request for a vote in their favour, who is behind our candidates, what drives and motives them and when do we truly know that they have our interest at heart?

Back in the 18th Century and beyond, we could rely on a society-wide notion of honour. Despite how flawed that idea became as time went on, it was a trait by which everyone strove to live by, a matter of life or death and the making of every decent citizen. And so our politicians were considered honest as required by their duty to honour. But any such noble concepts are long now meaningless, in a world where we are happy to lie, cheat and defy with impunity. In times such as these, words no longer hold any weight as their choice and cadence has little reflection as one’s honest self so long as the deceit is not criminal.

Therefore we are left with one simple measure, actions. The only way we can truly gauge someone’s character and their earnest thoughts is what they were willing to do in order to achieve them. Our politicians often therefore try to hide their own acts and votes behind anonymity often refusing to state before a vote and hoping to be hidden within the herds after. Its by lack of mention that the men and women of Capitol Hill get away with a clear dichotomy of action and speech, the inconsistencies of their narratives only visible to the select view who go out of their way to catalog and research it.

There is no better display of this than the current candidate list for President and it underlines my own personal reasons for entering the race. Let us quickly do what many do not and see if the actions taken by those vying for power truly match the words that they love to espouse.

Our case for today is William Bell. Admiral, veteran, patriarch. It’s a commendable set of titles that has historically produced strong leadership and that same honour-bound mentality that I touched on earlier. However, it is easy for us to get lost in the old notions of military men, who care only for country and not for themselves, as they have give up their safety for our own. I do not doubt that many of our troops embody this to their heart and I have the utmost pride for our military institutions, but men like Bell use these precious set of beliefs as a shield to hide away their more political, self-serving ideas.

Bell espouses himself firstly as republican and secondly as a leader. However his dual loyalties expose him to an ugly truth. One runs for president because they strongly believe they provide an alternate and that there is something chronically wrong with either the current administration or those who wish to form another one. In the admiral’s case it is sensible that both must be true, else what could drive him to stand on the stage?

Yet, when one looks at the man’s actions, they paint a different picture. The first point should be an obvious one but I find it rarely mentioned, delegated to the shadows of critical thought. William Bell is standing against Julian Berkeley, in fact a great thrust of Bell’s campaign has been centered on his opposition to Berkeley. Bell works as Chief of Naval Operations. Not only is this a Providentially approved role, but the central premise of it is to answer to federal bodies, the President (as Command-in-chief), his defense secretary and the secretary of the navy. Let us be clear too that all of these posts are held by those whose objectives are aligned with the President and the democratic party.

So it is then plain to see that farce that is Bell’s campaign. On the one hand he is a staunch defender of republican values and rights but in reality he is happy to play stooge to the same man he claims to oppose. Why does the Admiral commit such a transparent act of self-preservation? The answer is simple. A pay check. Because despite the contribution to this country, he has fallen into the same cadre as many politicians today - he will do anything for money.

One might try to argue that Bell is trying to do right by his military comrades by acting as an effective leader, after all military matters are in some regards distinct to political (though let us not deny that one certainly effects the other). However this fallacy can easily be debunked. To so publicly have their leader standing on a political platform for the whole country to see only ostracizes and creates a negative environment for those who may not agree to the Admiral’s philosophy.

And so, William Bell is neither a honest republican and nor is he a good leader, his love for money sacrificing both.

The decent, honourable, thing would have been the Admiral resigning in order to run, however political honesty has degraded to far that men like William Bell. He must think that such notions of decency no longer apply to him so long as he has medals pinned to his chest. Let us not even touch on the myriad of inconsistencies, lies and fantasy in his policies and stated beliefs, because they pale in the comparison to a man whose belief in service to America begins and ends at the length of his pay check.