Candidacy by soundbite

[Stinky The Clown]

That, it seems to me, is where the US electoral system has devolved.

The Lincoln/Douglas debates are held up as some sort of historical high water mark. Kennedy and Nixon famously went at it. Even there, some substance was involved. Of course, the handwriting was on the wall. Nixon's five o'clock shadow and perspiration soaked upper lip got at least as much play as anything that was said.

Fast forward to the last few cycles. It gets more and more silly, watching 'debates'. First off, there's simply no real 'debate' happening. A few favored candidates get questions lobbed to them by some fellow who is a member of the same country club. The candidate winds up and let's the patter fly. Some of it is no more than a time-worn stump speech. Some of it could as easily (and effectively) be phoned in as delivered in person.

When will we see a candidate who both understands and plays to the reality of the day? Maybe we already have.

Doesn't it seem time for candidates to stop pussy footing around policy statements and shades of difference and just be plain spoken about their goals for their presidency?

The only one, it seems to me, who has been doing this so far is Dennis Kucinch.

He keeps it pretty simple and keeps it on vision. Not always, but by and large that's how he's seen in the overall. Sure, he gets a lot of ridicule. I suspect that's for two reasons. His appearance and his pollyanna policies.

And that would be grossly unfair.

He's clearly committed to what he says.

I'd like to see more candidates be committed to simpler, plainer visions and policies. Not nuanced equivocations guaranteed to offend no one and meet with lukewarm but broad acceptance everywhere.

But real, passionate, simple, deeply held statements of vision and conviction.

Here are some examples of what I'd like to hear:

"I am for universal, cradle to grave single payer health care for every American citizen and every legitimate visitor to our country."

"I am for reaching out to the world in a spirit of cooperation so as to seek common ground and common good."

"I will maintain the United States' defensive capabilities in a way that is superior to every possible enemy we might face, while cutting deeply into the Pentagon's budget to eliminate all waste and fat and elective programs."

"I want an America where every child will be given the best education possible. I will reward teachers and not punish communities"

These are sound bites. There is no detail involved. They're vision statements.

The only way to assess a person's sincerity is to judge them on the totality of their life. Talking about policy in a wonkish way is deadly dull to most people. True enough, some people do care about minutia and they deserve to know; to have answers to any questions they have. But by and large, the country wants vision more than details.

But what we get now is neither ...... not vision, because it is a bit too specific for that ...... and not details because the candidates, for the most part, are quite averse to being nailed down. In many ways, the way the game is played now, the candidates get to hide behind the system.

I want to know what they think. What they feel.

We all know that the 20 page (or 200 page) policy statement Candidate X gives on health care is, in the end, pretty meaningless. What that paper says and what finally might get passed into law may bear no resemblance to one another.

So, in many ways, I don't care so much about details as I do about vision.

Vision and the sum total of the life journey of the candidate.

I would find that very refreshing, indeed.

[monmouth]

1. I like many things about Kucinich but he just isn't a "closer."

[Stinky The Clown]

2. I agree with you

And if this thread was seen as a booster for him, then I didn't make it clear enough. It wasn't about him, but simply cited his as an example of one who makes clear vision statements.