Tuesday, October 15, 2024
In today’s political landscape, voters are inundated with a plethora of promises and proposals from candidates vying for their support. Yet, despite all the fervent rhetoric and the impassioned speeches identifying all that is wrong with the world, a striking trend emerges: politicians often remain conspicuously vague when it comes to the specifics of their policies.
Political generalities manifest in the form of broad statements, slogans, and aspirational language that resonate with the electorate. Phrases like "change we can believe in," "better together," or "a brighter future" exemplify how politicians often package complex ideas into digestible and emotionally appealing soundbites. These generalities serve several purposes: they unify diverse groups under a common banner, simplify complex issues, and create a sense of hope or urgency.
While generalities can mobilize support and inspire action, they often lack the “meat” required for substantive policy discussions. In a world where issues like climate change, healthcare, the southern border and economic inequality require thoughtful approaches, generalities can lead to a disconnect between voter expectations and political realities. I imagine that if solving national and international issues is as simple as coming up with a five- or six-word phrase, the issues between Israel and Hamas would have been solved generations ago. These problems are complex, and it will take serious, complex discussions and actions to solve them.
Most people in our country believe there is a problem at our southern border. It has been a problem for more than 30 years, and the problem keeps growing. Over those 30 years, there is plenty of blame to pass around for the situation that exists. What would be appealing to hear is a candidate who offers a concrete, well-thought-out course of political action that will result in a solution. Imagine, instead of only identifying a problem and blaming someone, spelling out a specific plan to solve the problem!
To be clear, I am not suggesting or promoting one political party or one candidate over the other. Seems like both candidates have had a chance to fix the border problem and neither one has done it. In fact, the problem has just gotten worse through the past two administrations. People no longer want promises, slogans or threats, they want specifics about a course of action which will stop illegal immigration. Mr. or Mrs. Candidate, tell me what your thoughts are so I can vote for the person who presents the best plan — not the person who makes the most promises.
Why do politicians avoid the specifics? Politicians operate within a highly competitive environment where appealing to the broadest base is crucial. Specifics can alienate certain voter segments, while generalities provide a safer, more inclusive platform. By avoiding detailed commitments, politicians can appeal to a wider audience, leaving room for interpretation and adaptation based on shifting public sentiments. In other words, in a quickly changing world, it allows politicians wiggle room to move as the wind blows to garner the most votes. It would seem for today’s candidates, the goal is not to solve the problem, it is to win the election.
Face the problem, work the problem, solve the problem. Whatever you do, stop talking about the problem while offering only generalities as a solution or playing to an audience.
Ya think this is why we are in the shape we are in?
Thought for the day: Solving problems does not seem to be the number one goal of today’s politicians, the priority is getting elected and re-elected.
Until next time … I will keep ridin’ the storm out!
