The problem here is that in election time it is difficult to distinguish the two. Politicians put forward policies that are high on rhetoric and short on practicality. This of course is deliberate as nobody wants to be placed on the defensive at election time. It is far easier to defend ‘pies in the sky’ than to descend into the trenches to outline the workables.
Besides it is rhetoric that brings out the base. ‘Medicare for All’ rings well for some. Outlining how you intend to pay for it. Not so much. It is no wonder that Bernie Sanders ran from this question in the last debate while slipping on the Walter Mondale banana skin of ‘tax increases.’
Donald Trump saw the value of rhetoric with his ‘Make American Great Again’ so did Barack Obama and his mantra of ‘Change’. Both were high on voice bytes but lacking in specifics. It is for this reason that listening to campaign speeches is largely a waste of time. Debates are only one step better (although you wouldn’t think so with Round I and II of the recent Democratic free-for-all). The best you can get, if you value informed policy, would be a one-on-one interview with no soft ball questions. They are rare for a reason.
Elections are popularity contests not moments of intellectual swagger. They are the domain of the marketer not the technician. Brand is all that matters with complications around policy relegated to the realm of the after thought,lest they detract from the end goal of victory.
This is the tragedy of the election. It exists everywhere. The trouble with American politics in particular is that the nature of the system has set up a continuous election cycle with virtually no break from recourse to the partisan denominator.
No comments:
Post a Comment