As a society we have the propensity to outline our ideologies by cross-referencing them to the priorities of our founding fathers. Political candidates leverage terms like "The beacon of hope", "Promote American values", "Get the country back on track, and my personal favorite "I will work hard with my friends from across the isle". What do these mean? If you have an idea the rationale or moral calculus that is employed I would like you to shed light on it.
The utterance of such pithy garbage is a mere marketing and branding stunt. By hitting on such blanket terminology the candidates ensure themselves that they are not pidgin-holing their talking points or creating fertile ground for another candidate to stomp upon. If every one of the political candidates sprinkles some of these magical 'keywords' onto each response then it can be certain that constituent alienation is limited and a firm stance is avoided on an issue. By branding the candidate it is easier to create and sculpt an image that is desired as well as it is easier to set a broad-base set of goals that resonate with a diverse demographic foundation.
Analogy: A candidate desires to please the public by making them seem likable to the greatest number of people across a community while also trying to limit the amount of people that are alienated. This is similar to flattening a pizza dough. A good pizza is thrown, pounded, and flattened in an effort to create both a desired thickness as well as create an appropriate size. These two traits are important because when purchasing a pizza it is vital for the pizza to have sustenance as well as value. Political candidates fail to abide by this perfect-pizza logic instead they spread and dilute their stances to cover the widest swath possible. A direct result of this thinning strategy is the devaluation of the candidates firmness and eagerness for (potentially controversial) change. See a pizza's value is stored in its ability to perfect each facet of the pie, cheese, sause, dough. While some customers may dislike the pizza others may revere it is incredible. Politicians rather would like to create a pizza that is not only thin but diluted too many toppings. The result is that there are very few people who dislike the pizza but there are also scarce amounts of people who actually enjoy it. The purpose of this analogy is to illustrate how the risk of alienation is a greater political factor than targeting a small highly supportive base.
These polished statements effectively say nothing. They do not ever answer a question that is asked. They fail to inform the electorate about their thoughts on pertinent issues. Knowing these three things I seek to elaborate and further and deconstruct the gaff that each candidate makes every time they open their mouth.
They do not ever answer a question that is asked.
With a small army of public relations specialists, fashion specialists, social media experts, and speech writers the risks are too high to say something that may be interpreted as controversial. The controlled homogenous image that is broadcast to the media and supporters has been cultivated since the inception of the campaign. By answering a specific question with poignent examples and interjecting a stable stance a candidate has the risk of corrupting the interdependent staff that he employs.
Even though I am assaulting the very fabric of the American political campaigning system it should be noted that the questions that are asked are indeed often leading. This means that unless a candidate is willing to concede to the desired answer it seems as though the candidate is evading the question.
They fail to inform the electorate about their thoughts on pertinent issues.
One important consequence is that these tautological statements do not articulate what the candidate stands for. If everyone on stage is buttoned-up in their $500 suits and the perfectly groomed hair there should be some distinguishing factors that distances one candidate from another. But this does not occur. One would think in such a dier time for America there would be a field of candidates that are passionate, charismatic, and outstanding. Ironically, there is no such correlation between challenging times and strong leadership. Conversely, the more urgent the era the weaker the talking-points become.
Analogy 2:
America needs a candidate who is a bad salsa dancer. Our nation needs someone with two left feet. When the music starts it would be great if Willard Romney or Newt Gingrich would just step right on their dance partner feet. We need a candidate with no rhythm who stumbles and re-corrects them self. The problem is that once a political candidate's campaign machine is at full speed rhythm is established. This means that a candidate can more daintily across the dance floor without encroaching on the partner space. Fluid motion is critical to the dance and the goal of salsa dancing. But if candidates were poor dancers and stepped on some feet they would be forced to become aquatinted with the partner. When one steps on their partner's foot conversation ensues either proclaiming your clumsiness or apologizing for ineptitude. It is during this moment that candidates would be able to proclaim their sentiment on ideas and moral calculus used in decision making. The poorer the dancer the more apt the candidate is to become conversant and in-touch with the electorate. This entire process does not occur because our politicians are amazing salsa dancers. The public is akin to the dance partner and is continuously spun tip-toed around throughout each election cycle. Message: Loosing your rhythm is the best prescription to get in sync with reality.
