Trends in political elections pt 2 - 1.29.2007.2
Continued from part 1...
Debates for candidates, even Presidential ones, have been whittled down – presumably to save time – to trite answers on generalized questions. As if a subject like education or the economy or national healthcare or public security can be properly answered in 1-2 minutes. And any public speaking event is carried by few media outlets, and that is generally only carried in part. The net result being that most only get to hear a key phrase or video clip. The soundbite of the actual event. And the public is asked to base decisions on that. Which works well for the youth brought up on a culture of little information and fast delivery.
Of course that is not the best thing for the nation. I think that all would agree, if any party had a plan to successfully end the war in Iraq the majority of Americans would have rallied behind it. Sadly that did not happen in the recent mid-term elections. We were fed ‘There must be a change’ and ‘I will bring you a change’. Neither of which are a plan nor a statement of what will be done. Yet as soundbites they were quite effective. Even now there has only been one plan posed. Whether it is a good plan or not, is not the question. There is no alternative being given. Yet the soundbites ring clear, ‘We need to change.’ [Let me clarify, a plan entails a detailed explanation of goals, with clearly defined resources and actions. ‘We should leave’ is not a plan. We should leave via a gradual reduction of troops over a 6 month period, allowing religious tensions to grow and create a civil war that Iran will back. When all of our troops are gone we will allow Iran to come into the area in force, raise oil prices and set up terrorist groups – that blame us for the chaos resulting from our leaving the country in disarray – that will plan to attack our nation funded by the higher oil prices. Once we are attacked on our soil again we can then nuke the nation in retaliation. That is a plan. It may be bad but it is a plan.]
So the result is that many are using the 30 seconds of information, given by faces that are familiar due to repetition, to base their decisions on. And the next generations of kids are being shown that this is the manner to base their decisions. That is those that are bothering to take the obligation of voting seriously.
I have a problem with this. I have a problem with what I see as soundbite politics. I have a problem with politicians giving one answer in a specific state and an altered, not quite the same meaning, answer in another. I have a problem with politicians avoiding giving a real answer to a serious question because it may take too long. I have a problem with politicians thinking I’m not smart enough to notice the difference.
I’m also scared that this trend will only grow. Fewer people will be involved in electing the President, or any politician and the public will suffer. That is not a democracy, and no one will notice it slip away – well almost no one. But the initial furor over candidates today will be replaced by who is in the finals of some reality show. Don’t be surprised if a debate is scheduled on the same day. It’s your nation too. Don’t let them forget.
For my part I have asked questions. I will continue to do so. I expect answers. And I will call those out that are duplicitous, or so smug to think that everyone is fooled. Regardless of their political party. Copy my letters and send them yourself. Tell me what other questions we should ask. Remind the candidates that they are OBLIGATED to answer our questions and keep their promises if they want our vote.
This is what I think, what do you think?
Labels: mid-term elections, presidential candidate, soundbite politics
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home