by Richard L. Weaver IIIt doesn’t come as a surprise that people, in general, prefer entertainment over almost any other choice, and when it comes to speeches, entertainment over substance. One reason Ronald Reagan was considered a great speaker was because he told great stories — and people connect with stories. Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican convention went over well because she connected with the people, and her story of the difference between a soccer mom and a pit bull has been repeated and remembered by most everyone. The difference? Lipstick.
People have never been good at detecting issues (substance) in speeches no matter the length, speaker, or situation. It happens in the academic environment, too. A short survey I conducted in a class of over 300 second-year students showed they prefer an entertaining instructor who did not know his or her material well to a knowledgeable one who delivered material in a dry manner.
Stories, laugh lines, one-liners, and cute phrases capture attention, hold interest, and make the evening news. Entertainment sells; however, should that be a criterion, even a minor one, for a candidate running for president? Obtaining the highest office should not be a laughing matter.
- - - - -
A question to both presidential candidates on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric caught my attention. Asked if they would ever lie to the American people, both said, “Never.” Of course, what could they say when asked directly, only in my advertisements? Why is it they are willing to support advertisements during the presidential race that lie to the American people? And they end each ad saying, “I’m John McCain [Barack Obama], and I approve this message.”
I fully realize that presidential campaigns have never been genteel debates over policy disagreements. What is troubling is that both candidates promised that this would be a better campaign composed of more substantive discussions, and yet both have given in to the same imperatives that turned other campaigns ugly. They have abandoned honest attacks for distortion and outright falsehoods. The candidates won’t lie, but they will allow it in their ads?
The problem is that advertising works, and the candidates know it. My wife and I were on a “great rivers” cruise during the last presidential election (George W. Bush vs. John Kerry), and we were seated in the dining room talking with an ex-military man and his wife about the election. To support his vote for George W. Bush, the fellow repeated, almost verbatim, ideas he had gleaned from the swift-boat advertisements. To him, a former military man, the swift-boat ads proved the illegitimacy of John Kerry’s credentials and, thus, his candidacy. It shocked us that someone actually took those ads seriously, believed exactly what they said, and used the information from them as part of their own belief system.
- - - - -
It’s emotion over logic, passion over rationality, and fervor and fervency over wisdom and good sense. This is a fundamental for some! There are people who vote based on emotion, passion, and fervor. If it isn’t what they themselves feel passionate about, it is the passion created at the decision-making moment — whether by a candidate, a misstep, an advertisement, or the media. This is especially true for those who haven’t made up their minds (or say they haven’t), and it can be that it is some small, truly insignificant item that tips the emotional balance.
This isn’t the case of being democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, a religious fundamentalist or otherwise where the choice of candidates is and has been clear for some time. These people are not those who swing elections one way or the other. They don’t need to listen to the candidates, absorb the advertising, read new information, or become better informed. In some cases they are simply bored by the entire process because their mind is made up.
It is the swing voters and independents (sometimes one and the same) who have no solid, identifiable allegiances who give credibility to last-minute emotion, passion, and fervor. It is the responsibility of voters to measure the sincerity, wisdom, undertone, and truth factor of the sound bites and advertisements designed to bypass logic, rationality, wisdom, and good sense.
- - - - -
There is something to solid consistency and evenness in disposition. When candidates appear stable and steady they come across as dependable and reliable. When candidates are full of surprises, unpredictable turns, eye-opening changes, astounding statements, and startling choices, it makes you wonder, and properly so, what their presidency will look like. Is it not a snapshot?
- - - - -
It is important for citizens, if not the candidates themselves, to keep their eyes on the issues. Democracies are built on and maintained by an informed citizenry. And by keeping their eyes on the issues, citizens are able to see through the manipulation that candidates, their parties, and the media promote through their tantalizing images and promises. When the country is facing record deficits, a crumbling infrastructure, a heavy dependence on oil, lack of incentives for developing green technologies, the need for universal health care, an unnecessary war that is killing young men and costing the nation enormous sums of money, and lack of support for stem-cell research, it must be clear — every voter must realize — that solid, realistic, and practical political programs demand compromise and some kind of sacrifice from each and every one of us.
- - - - -
It is important to have smart people running the government. True, it is no guarantee; nothing is. But there are advantages of having intellectuals in charge. First, they tend to surround themselves with other intellectuals --- knowledgeable, clear-headed, experienced, well-educated people. Second, they approach problems by considering alternatives, weighing possibilities, and taking time to arrive at answers. They are careful, methodical, meticulous, and thorough. Third, they are flexible and open-minded. Fourth, they are less likely to shoot-from-the-hip and make irrational, illogical, unfounded, senseless short-term decisions.
- - - - -
This election is unique; the two sides are truly different. No matter where you get your information, no matter the qualities you consider important, and no matter how you choose your candidate, the fact is that there is an enormous difference between the candidates, and who gets elected will have a major effect on each and every person in this country for years to come.
At essortment.com, there is a terrific essay entitled, “Understanding the importance of voting.” The essay underscores the importance of the future president’s selection of a (or several) Supreme Court justices and the influence the selections will have as many as 40 years into the future.
“Thoughts from another country on the U.S. election process,” offers a short essay that serves as a small window into our process by someone living abroad. It is not just interesting, it is refreshing as well.
Copyright And Then Some Publishing, LLC 2008
We look at our current President Bush and of course we think that intelligence matters most (due his apparent lack of intelligence) - but historians almost universally state that intelligence is NOT a determining factor in the success of a president (or lack thereof). As Time magazine recently stated, "It's good to be smart, but that's no guarantee of success...more important is the confidence that lets you welcome smart people around you." Lincoln is revered for his ability to involve rivals in his administration (and the success that followed). As historian Russell Riley states: "Maybe we would benefit from having both of these guys [McCain and Obama] in the White House at the same time."
ReplyDeleteHello Jimmylee, thanks for your contribution, and welcome back. You're absolutely right that intelligence is NOT a determining factor in the success of a president, much less anyone else! No single factor is or could be a determining factor in success. But, you have to place intelligence into a context. For example, you might want to consider political temperament, a sense of calm in dealing with problems, programs or prescriptions for turning the country around. Sometimes, too, one must examine what has occurred up to the present moment (a well organized, well thought out, and effectively implemented campaign, for example), and if you look specifically at a platform (energy policy and job creation are two examples), then you get a sense of how intelligence meshes with other factors. It may be, when all is said and done, that we are truly looking at a once in a lifetime talent!
ReplyDelete