Like any presidential campaign, a multitude of talking points has been generated to create a contrast between the two candidates and subsequently the two parties. To an extent, some talking points have created legitimate results about what both candidates would do as president (Middle East policy, economic policy, civil rights, etc.). The rest regrettably have not accomplished much to move the political conversation forward (dogs on roofs, not building enterprise by yourself, loving trees, being socialist, etc.). So which talking points which could have been talking points were instead overtaken by these more superficial election distractions? Below are some talking points that should have been gone over but weren't during this campaign, along with a nice quote to explain just what they became in this election cycle.
Education - "I love teachers" Gov. Mitt Romney
Education this cycle was transposed to talking about teachers which is a start but it's not the whole picture. Education is not in a state of where it needs massive reform from a logistical standpoint, but it may have been helpful to acknowledge the fact that the United States still lacks rather behind other industrialized countries when it comes to subject test scores. At the same time, it would also have been refreshing to hear some sort of policy that evaluates students better than a number value can. This is not to say that assessment of skills is unnecessary, but that in a world full of different occupations and more importantly quickly developing occupations, evaluating math and reading skills may not necessarily apply to figuring out the full potential of every student. No proposal to change this approach has been made during this election cycle, and regardless of who is elected is unlikely to happen given the state-oriented nature of education policy in the United States. With the economy taking center stage this time around, it would have been nice to hear something about how to prepare all students to become American workers better than evaluating their SAT's.
Gay Rights - "I am absolutely comfortable ... [with gay marriage]" Vice Pres. Joe Biden
It seemed that once President Obama announced his support for gay marriage back in May, the Pandora's Box on Gay Rights would have been smashed wide-open, sending the country into disarray over whether its Adam and Eve instead of Adam and Steve. Then Rick Santorum endorsed Gov. Romney and the media moved on. The Gay Rights battle, primarily the right to marry, has since then been delegated to different state ballots and largely ignored on the national stage. Aside from the usual reminder of where the parties stood on the issue, neither campaign has been willing to make it a reason to vote for them, when in all fairness to the American people it should have definitely had a spot at centerstage. State ballots are simply not good enough to move the conversation of Gay Rights along, mostly because it doesn't apply to all Americans. It doesn't seem right to think that people in one state should have more or less basic rights than people in another state that end up paying the same federal taxes. Regardless of where the conversation of marriage equality goes, or who comes out on top, it should have been a very important and very thorough examination of what the United States and not some states is made of and willing to support in terms of civil rights.
It seemed that once President Obama announced his support for gay marriage back in May, the Pandora's Box on Gay Rights would have been smashed wide-open, sending the country into disarray over whether its Adam and Eve instead of Adam and Steve. Then Rick Santorum endorsed Gov. Romney and the media moved on. The Gay Rights battle, primarily the right to marry, has since then been delegated to different state ballots and largely ignored on the national stage. Aside from the usual reminder of where the parties stood on the issue, neither campaign has been willing to make it a reason to vote for them, when in all fairness to the American people it should have definitely had a spot at centerstage. State ballots are simply not good enough to move the conversation of Gay Rights along, mostly because it doesn't apply to all Americans. It doesn't seem right to think that people in one state should have more or less basic rights than people in another state that end up paying the same federal taxes. Regardless of where the conversation of marriage equality goes, or who comes out on top, it should have been a very important and very thorough examination of what the United States and not some states is made of and willing to support in terms of civil rights.
Drones - "Drones are one tool that we use [in keeping Americans safe]" Pres. Barack Obama
Drones are a tricky talking point to bring up which may have been the reason why it was left out of stump speeches. Technically, drones are a difficult concept to understand for anyone that isn't immediately familiar with foreign policy, let alone military tactics. Furthermore, their lack of daily applicability (if Americans begin seeing drones in the sky in their every day lives, the election is going to be the last thing on their minds) to most has distanced them from the spotlight. For those who are indeed troubled by the development of drone use and technology, their questions were not answered in 2012. Firstly, what effects do drones have on the enemy and what effects do they have on civilians? Secondly, considering that drones are practically hobby-shop planes on steroids, and therefore much easier to acquire than nuclear weaponry, is their spread to belligerent nations a problem for American hard security? Lastly, is there some moral authority to be respected when drones are introduced on the battlefield or are they instead a wild card in military arsenals? Although I hate leaving readers with these tantalizing questions, I'm afraid I must simply to respect the depth of this particular topic, but I will reiterate the point that neither Democrats nor Republicans were able to answer these questions to the American people during this election cycle, which again is somewhat of a shame.
Infrastructure - "Of course we believe in government. We think government should do what it does really well, but that it has limits, and obviously within those limits are things like infrastructure, interstate highways, and airports" - Rep. Paul Ryan
This quote comes out of The New Yorker in a profile of Paul Ryan before he was chosen as Mitt Romney's running mate. Unfortunately for the American electorate, this is as far as the conversation on the country's infrastructure has come from both campaigns. Both candidates have tried to tie in talk of infrastructure within their economic plans and consequently what they think the role of government is, which is understandable given the similar nature of the two topics. However, like the talk on education, more specifics and more federally centered ideas are needed to truly tackle the problem of a failing infrastructure in the United States. Forget bridges being deficient, forget energy systems and power lines being less than optimal, there is a fundamental update to a national infrastructure system that states simply aren't capable of carrying out on their own. Fuel and energy lines that stretch across states, interstates that need expanding, and ports that fail to keep up with international trade are all matters that were handled in the 50's and 60's and then left to essentially rot under the excuse of economic dominance which led to complacency. They are also matters that have been stalled in a gridlocked Congress given the animosity there is in American politics from one aisle to another. If you take that fact into consideration, then the infrastructure problem no longer has to do with economics, but instead has all to do with leadership; a leader is needed to whip into shape those that would oppose obviously positive bills for fear of overspending or earmarking or worse, bipartisanship.
The Bottom Line
These are some of the many talking points that just didn't seem to make the cut this election cycle. Whether it was because the problems were too complex to turn into campaign soundbites or because these were not topics that mattered to voters in Ohio and Florida, these issues were not thrown into the political mix, and are most likely destined to remain in political purgatory until someone picks up the reins or most likely they become an immediate issue. Hopefully we can try to address the former and not the latter in this situation, but it ultimately comes down to the electorate to demand what talking points should be discussed and argued and which ones are simply not as important as others. Without that feedback campaigns and elections in general are forced to take more aggressive and negative stances as opposed to solution-oriented stances, which seems to have happened during this cycle. Ironically, it is that strain of politics that manages to ignore issues like these presented here and go straight for the meatier ones which while perhaps objectively more important still do not overpower these missing talking points or make them irrelevant.
Liked what you read? Want to know when the next post is up? Then Subscribe via email (top right tab bar) or by RSS Feed.
Drones are a tricky talking point to bring up which may have been the reason why it was left out of stump speeches. Technically, drones are a difficult concept to understand for anyone that isn't immediately familiar with foreign policy, let alone military tactics. Furthermore, their lack of daily applicability (if Americans begin seeing drones in the sky in their every day lives, the election is going to be the last thing on their minds) to most has distanced them from the spotlight. For those who are indeed troubled by the development of drone use and technology, their questions were not answered in 2012. Firstly, what effects do drones have on the enemy and what effects do they have on civilians? Secondly, considering that drones are practically hobby-shop planes on steroids, and therefore much easier to acquire than nuclear weaponry, is their spread to belligerent nations a problem for American hard security? Lastly, is there some moral authority to be respected when drones are introduced on the battlefield or are they instead a wild card in military arsenals? Although I hate leaving readers with these tantalizing questions, I'm afraid I must simply to respect the depth of this particular topic, but I will reiterate the point that neither Democrats nor Republicans were able to answer these questions to the American people during this election cycle, which again is somewhat of a shame.
Infrastructure - "Of course we believe in government. We think government should do what it does really well, but that it has limits, and obviously within those limits are things like infrastructure, interstate highways, and airports" - Rep. Paul Ryan
This quote comes out of The New Yorker in a profile of Paul Ryan before he was chosen as Mitt Romney's running mate. Unfortunately for the American electorate, this is as far as the conversation on the country's infrastructure has come from both campaigns. Both candidates have tried to tie in talk of infrastructure within their economic plans and consequently what they think the role of government is, which is understandable given the similar nature of the two topics. However, like the talk on education, more specifics and more federally centered ideas are needed to truly tackle the problem of a failing infrastructure in the United States. Forget bridges being deficient, forget energy systems and power lines being less than optimal, there is a fundamental update to a national infrastructure system that states simply aren't capable of carrying out on their own. Fuel and energy lines that stretch across states, interstates that need expanding, and ports that fail to keep up with international trade are all matters that were handled in the 50's and 60's and then left to essentially rot under the excuse of economic dominance which led to complacency. They are also matters that have been stalled in a gridlocked Congress given the animosity there is in American politics from one aisle to another. If you take that fact into consideration, then the infrastructure problem no longer has to do with economics, but instead has all to do with leadership; a leader is needed to whip into shape those that would oppose obviously positive bills for fear of overspending or earmarking or worse, bipartisanship.
The Bottom Line
These are some of the many talking points that just didn't seem to make the cut this election cycle. Whether it was because the problems were too complex to turn into campaign soundbites or because these were not topics that mattered to voters in Ohio and Florida, these issues were not thrown into the political mix, and are most likely destined to remain in political purgatory until someone picks up the reins or most likely they become an immediate issue. Hopefully we can try to address the former and not the latter in this situation, but it ultimately comes down to the electorate to demand what talking points should be discussed and argued and which ones are simply not as important as others. Without that feedback campaigns and elections in general are forced to take more aggressive and negative stances as opposed to solution-oriented stances, which seems to have happened during this cycle. Ironically, it is that strain of politics that manages to ignore issues like these presented here and go straight for the meatier ones which while perhaps objectively more important still do not overpower these missing talking points or make them irrelevant.
Liked what you read? Want to know when the next post is up? Then Subscribe via email (top right tab bar) or by RSS Feed.
RSS Feed
Or join the Academy Facebook Page to stay up to date on everything Academy.
No comments:
Post a Comment