[nothing] The worthless rhetoric of campaigning Democrats and Republicans Matt Harrison
If the early-season campaining of the Republicans and Democrats is any indication, American voters will be greeted with generally two types of rhetoric from each this contentious election season.
The first are the vague, patriotic platitudes of the type that no rational person would disagree with. These constitute the lion's share of partisan campaign drivel, as most politicians find themselves on the campaign trail speaking to a captive audience. These audiences are known to ooh and aah over meaningless statements like "I will create jobs because I believe in the American worker," and with no opponent to draw away crowds with the exact same crowd-pleasers, the crafty politician relishes the opportunity to say nothing as often as possible.
Saying nothing also sounds nice and it doesn't offend anyone. These empty statements satisfy voters; judging from the political acumen of most of them, they probably don't even realize that they are devoid of substance at all.
Various examples of such empty rhetoric from the GOP and Democratic Party websites, Ground Zero for the mid-term political spin:
On the environment, the Republicans claim: "The President is working to meet America’s energy demands and the challenges of the global economy by developing clean, domestic, affordable supplies of energy."
But their opponents, the Democrats, seek to adumbrate the stark contrast between the policies: "Democrats are committed to the next generation of affordable and renewable energy." Oh, wait, nevermind, that's the same thing. Thanks for the differentiation, folks.
On the economy, the GOP claims: "President Bush will not be satisfied until every American who wants a job can find one; until every business has a chance to grow; and until we turn our economic recovery into lasting prosperity that reaches every corner of America." Well, big deal. Who would expect him to be satisfied with a recession?
Not the Democrats, certainly, but they are concentrating on staking claims to Universal Truths on National Security: "We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart, recognizing that homeland security begins with hometown security." Who doesn't believe in a strong national defense? Are the Democrats supposed to be impressing us with this firm stand of conviction? Gee, I hope they are not taking too large of a risk by alienating those voters who believe in a weak and stupid defense policy.
Even worse than the platitudes are the the second type of political speech heavily employed by the Democrats and Republicans: the logical fallacy. When the topic uncomfortably shifts to the adversarial debate over public policy instead of lazy recital of meaningless rhetoric, gross sophistries invariably tumble from partisan campaign podia. Two such examples from each party:
Democrats: "Republicans have a 'culture of corruption.'
Lord Acton famously suggested that political power itself corrupts. This axiom would make the Democrats, to any extent that they are relatively free of corruption, only so because they are not currently in power themselves. Tom DeLay and other Republicans have abused their ability to pass basically whatever legislation they want. They are getting paid extra to do so, but they are hardly the first documented cases of corrupt political officials.
As it turns out, the Democrats are far from free from corruption themselves. One of their congressmen was recently found with $90,000 worth of bribes in his freezer, and other local party members have been accused of mysteriously becoming unsuspecting beneficiaries of other mysterious campaign irregularities.
The Democrats claim these examples are not indicative of a Democratic Culture of Corruption, such as they say the Republicans possess, and that they are merely aberrant oversights by individual Democratic politicians. In order to prove this principle, so says their campaign literature, they ask that we elect more of them to office, and thus give them even more power. Come again, Lord Acton?
Democrats: We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil so we need to lower gas prices."
As the majority of the world's oil supply is foreign, any increase in the demand for oil will, by logical extension, increase the demand for foreign oil.
And any reduction in the price of gasoline will increase demand for gasoline, by our friendly axiom called the Law of Demand. This will, in turn, increase demand for foreign oil.
The lower the gas prices, the more we're buying foreign oil. The two goals the Democrats pursue are contradictory and mutually defeating. With mindless campaign whoppers like these, no wonder they aren't in office.
Republicans: "The Patriot Act, et. al, makes it easy to defend America."
Obviously. Suspensions of civil liberties always make it easier for the government to protect its people. Imagine how safe from terrorism we'd be if a National Guardsman armed with an M-16 was stationed in every American living room! If it weren't just for that pesky 3rd Amendment, perhaps we'd be able to live our lives comfortably on Green Terror Alert, or even Blue...
Historical evidence has long confirmed that government's job gets easier when it is given more power to do its job. No rational person disputes that, and neither does the Constitution. It is for exactly that reason - to keep government from functioning so powerfully - that we have limits on Constitutional power. In American democracy, the scope of these limits - not the government's interest or benefit in stretching them - is what matters in the discussion of public policy.
Republicans: "We Republicans are dedicated to reducing the deficit, and you should vote for us because of it."
Republicans, in pursuit of such neccessities as a $231 million bridge to an Alaskan town of 50 people, created record deficits because of their reckless fiscal munificence. As a result, America faces record deficits. Despite the claims of National Security that supposedly necessitated the lavish spending, discretionary non-defense spending increased mightily as well.
President Bush, Republican-in-Chief, helped create that deficit by being the first president in history to fail to use his veto during his term of office. Now Republicans want to trumpet their trustworthiness as elected representatives by promising, in all seriousness, that they are the most effective, responsible, and honest ones to clean up the mess that they themselves made.
The partial repair of one's own damages are hardly something to be proud of.
Unforuntately, neither is the current state of America's political parties.
The above work is the opinion of the author, and not necessarily that of the Prometheus Institute.
Less on politics | If you didn't like this work, you might like instead: Wanted: A Few Good Men (Who Speak Arabic) How an over-reliance on technology has undermined America's intelligence in the war on terrorism
