Figmentations

Will politics ever be anything but a game to be won or lost?

Court cases are often won or lost based on the skill-set of the attorneys hired or appointed.  It is not necessarily the facts or circumstantial evidence alone that determine innocence or guilt, but it is how those elements are argued.  Facts aren’t allowed to speak for themselves any more.  Facts just don’t have the personality for it.

Rhetoric

The online post, “The Rhetoric and the Reality“, has found appropriate words to describe how politicians historically “tell the truth creatively” with “dubious claims, exaggerations, and selective statistics”. Or, as the WashintonPost.com’s “The Fact Checker” points out, we are seeing the ”usual share of outlandish spin, misleading rhetoric, and outright fibs.” 

Yet in this sound-bite world with busy, low-attention span audiences, oversimplication seems necessary.  Wasn’t John Kerry criticized for talking too much?  Aren’t other speakers criticized for being boring? Omitting facts does occur when we simplify. But then who is keeping track of the details?  How do we know when important facts are being omitted or not?  Who has the time to keep informed on all the details? Who are we trusting to keep us informed?  And, what are the consequences of placing our trust blindly?

Oversimplification

Maybe the facts of each case aren’t exciting, e.g., balancing the budget and taxes don’t enthuse many. Maybe reality, or the complexity of a situation, is downright uncomfortable or too overwhelming to hear.  However, oversimplifying things to the point where the situation can no longer get appropriately addressed doesn’t do anything to improve society or standards-of-living for anyone.

Being required to commit to an impulsive and unwavering “yes” or “no” stance on a particular argument might give some people certainty.  But is that doing justice to some of society’s more complex problems that don’t have clear-cut answers, and for which solutions change as more information becomes available.  In my opinion, the accusations of “flip-flopping” generally seem to center around these more complex situations.  That is not to condone “flip-flopping” unconditionally, but, like oversimpliciation, we need to be aware of when ”flip-flopping” is based on intelligent analysis and when it is for political expediency.

Understanding Other Models of the World

Clearly Sarah Palin’s speech at the RNC (combined with that of Guliani’s and Huckabee’s before her) was not intended to appeal to the general public.  The snarky attitude presented arguments that you either agreed with or didn’t, there was no middle ground and it didn’t inspire thoughts like “hey, that’s a good point”.

The strategy of the Republicans to have Sarah Palin appeal to her Party’s conservative base with such a divisive rhetoric during her Nomination Acceptance speech is being described as a risky strategy.  It is becoming more and more evident, especially to me by the tone of her speech, that her role couldn’t have been about attracting Hillary voters, but was about appealing to the base.  Consider the following articles sharing that point of view:

• From Oliver Willis’s blogThe “Other” Base
• From The LA Times in “Palin: wrong woman, wrong message“: Republicans may learn they can’t appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time.
• From Shel Horowitz in “Choosing Palin was Never about Hillary Voters” but about attracting the conservative base

For me, the best thing about this strategic move is that it makes us more aware of how differently the Republican conservative base views the world.  Having this understanding is critical for anyone that truly wants to reach across the aisle and arrive at solutions based on a higher common intent. 

Entertainment Value

So, maybe there is some good to come out of this circus.  Outcry, outrage, and emotional involvement is probably more likely to bring out truth-seeking action than would a more boring apathy-inducing campaign behind which ill-intentions can covertly breed.

Part of oversimplication in this game seems to be about knowing what provides the best entertainment value or theatre, and what will drive the voters to come out to the polls to vote. Clearly both sides can benefit from a divisive speech.  CNN reported that: Obama’s campaign says it raised more than $8 million from 130,000+ donors following Sarah Palin’s speech.

Selling

Some describe the game as a sale.  Like marketers, politicians work to persuade consumers to buy their product. Telling their stories is part of building their personal brands.

I say, don’t “persuade me” with your story.  I do enjoy good stories just like the next person.  And, I don’t doubt that each story is admirable and worthwhile at its core.  However, when it comes to government and fair legislation, I want to see the merit of your arguments and the facts of the whole picture, not just the part you want me to see.  Why not use storytelling to make the lackluster components of government more interesting instead of trying to sell me on something I’m not interested in buying?

The following three examples are not the way to create a government that people can be proud of:

• (from Twitter) thinkprogress CNBC host praises Palin for ‘putting a skirt on’: ‘I want her laying next to me i.. http://tinyurl.com/5af3tw 07:58 PM September 05, 2008 from twitterfeed
• (from Twitter) dcjohnson New post on why Republicans can lie freely: What Is Obama’s Story? at http://tinyurl.com/6m65vo 07:39 PM September 05, 2008 from web
• Hypocritical Republican Pundits as per the Daily Show: “Sarah Palin Gender Card”

Awareness of the Game

While the game(s) being played become more evident the closer you look, the theories about what strategies are actually being played or not are still open to much interpretation. Perhaps one goal of this current political game is to intentionally create confusion.  Busy lifestyles don’t allow most people the time or interest to look that close anyway, so it becomes easier for the soundbites to achieve their intended purpose, to win votes.

I have no idea about the degree to which people in general believe that games are intentionally being played.  I’m not even sure if each politician knows the role they are given or what the end results of the game they think they are playing ultimately is for all the players involved.  Maybe we don’t want to know.  “What can be done about it anyway?” might a common attitude.

And, what happens if more people became aware of what the game(s) truly being played were?  What does it feel like when the blinders come off?  Consider this article about how a Hillary supporter became aware of what Obama had to offer only after Hillary lost the primaries and he was welcomed in to unite with the rest of his party, and was surprised to see things from a new perspective:

• (from Twitter) TrulyLissa Kudo’s 2 Howard Wolfson (key Clinton Campaign insider) 4 shockingly honest, insightful & moving Washington Post piece: http://is.gd/27fV 02:33 PM September 01, 2008 from twhirl

My Conclusion

However you choose to see things is fine with me.  My post today simply describes the game and the components as I see them.  I believe that games will always be around, yet I do hope that the games of the future can have more of the Positives and less of the Negatives.  Stalemates aren’t win-wins for anyone.