We have touched on the idea that people typically want to vote for someone they can relate to. They want someone who talks like them and sees things the way they do. People are turned off by a candidate who speaks in terms they can't understand. I think this is an interesting conundrum because most Americans would presumably admit that they want someone smarter than them in office, but apparently they don't want them to appear smarter.
These thoughts were prompted by a piece on "The Huffington Post." What I get out of it is that candidates have to dumb themselves down to win debates. Romm says Obama could have trouble because he has made a reputation for himself of being "an over-educated smart talker." McCain, prior to allegations of being liar, had a reputation as a straight-talker and so overall the debates should favor him because in a debate it is more important to appear believeable because "if I don't convince you I'm honest, my stated policy positions can't possibly matter."
Romm continues at length about why this is so, going back to the Greeks and Shakespeare. What is disconcerting is that he is confirming one of the most frequent accusations of politics and politicians, that it is all "just rhetoric." What they say and the way they say things is all an attempt to win our votes, it isn't coming from their core values and beliefs as a leader of the people. But as the intended audience and the decisionmakers after the debates, who can we blame but ourselves?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Keep two things in mind.
a. People tend to vote for people they like.
b. There has been, always, a current of anti-intellectualism in American political life.
We can talk about this more in class.
The major problem I have with the idea that candidates have to dumb themselves down is that we should WANT someone who is smarter than us running the country!
Post a Comment