All of us have seen the various styles of campaign strategies over the years. There is the appeal to a minority segment, the consolidating of the “base” whatever that may be, attack ads regarding past indiscretions, and even a new twist, being positive and not lashing at your opponent, that is until the campaigner finds that doesn’t work.

Using the various types of social media has now been added to the mix.  And, if you are following them, the countless debates that the Republicans have been having all over the country are designed to get the evening sound bite.  In all these instances and strategies, the task is to increase visibility, and hope someone can catch the voter’s ear and attention.  The method of reporting the events of the campaign support the “sound bite” mentality.  It is difficult to figure out if it is the politician who is the egg or the media that is the chicken.

There is also one other element to the short cycle focus. If there are enough promises in the air, it is more difficult to keep track of what is being said and how it can “morph” into a new position as the current circumstances might dictate. It is a form of non-accountability or slipperiness that politicians thrive on.

Proposed New Practice

Instead of complaining about what is happening, I’ve decided to take the approach of offering a potential solution. Let each candidate pick a topic and develop an actual plan to address the issue. The plan should be put in writing with the key points of action or critical consideration underlined.  Since most successful plans revolve the KISS strategy of simplicity, require that the statement paper is limited to two pages, so all of us can actually get through the document and hopefully understand it.  If you can’t understand what the politician is saying, that tells you something too. Of course we want them to put a date on the statement just below the place where they say “I approve this message” and they sign it.

Now they can talk about the statements in debates, ads, news shows etc.  Now we can track the topics, and what they intend to do and hold them accountable when they get elected.

Last Suggestion Today

Let the public pick the topics  we want addressed. A few opinion polls with the top ten items of interest could be the starting point. My number one suggestion is creating and retaining jobs.  I don’t want to hear what you’ve done in the past. I want to hear about what you will do now in today’s situation.

_ I watched the President’s State of the Union Address, which I do every year. I know I could get a summary and spend less time. However, I believe I should listen and get the information first hand, and not let six other people interpret what he said, each with their own spin or perspective.  I also never listen to the opposing party response. This latter process is just one more of the political practices that is pulling this country apart.  I don’t see we gain anything by these politicians getting air time to express their view. This was not the intent of the State of the Union Address. If the public listens to the speech, they can decide what they like, what is not good and whether they support where the president wants to go.

Now let’s get to some of the positions he presented. He seems to want to support a stronger manufacturing base in the country. Do I hear anyone against that? Not many, especially if they can make a reasonable return on their investment. We ought to be able to put in place the incentives and disincentives to support this objective. Other countries look out for their industry, why not us? The rangle seems to be about how to do this.  The opposition wants only their way, which seems almost as vague as some of the outlined approaches by the President.  My position is this, give him the rope he has asked for, some true support, and if it doesn’t work in a reasonable timeframe, (not the foolish expectation that business can turn on a dime), then you can say his policies don’t work and you get the same chance.

His second big push is for education of the populace.  That makes sense too. If you talk to recruiters many will say they can’t find folks with the skills. Most believe it will get worse.  To some extent this is a chicken and egg scenario, we can stick with what we have and “bitch” about the welfare programs that raise the debt, or we can spend the money on making these people value society’s assets through education and stop the compounded support programs that are frequently necessary that happen numerous times.  It requires that we invest in people and spend upfront. They will pay taxes, buy things and not be a drain on society. What is the sacrifice? What if we traded two planes and an aircraft carrier for a 25% reduction in junior college tuition? There must be workable tradeoffs. 

We need people in Washington and Lansing who can be visionaries about something other than finding a job for themselves for the election period. Let them work towards jobs and prosperity for the rest of us. By the way has anyone ever considered letting Congress Reps have a four year seat so they can actually do some work instead of just campaigning for the full two years? We could pay for a lot of things with the money we would save on campaign financing.