Public Addresses: Uniquely American Problems

.
One of the hardest things to do, especially in political life in the USA, is to communicate effectively with the public.  This problem exists in both spoken communication: the announcements politicians make to the public, on YouTube, or on the Web, or over Television, and written communication: transcripts of speeches by political persons---Candidates, spokespersons, or what have you---or political writing.

For whatever reason, the American Public has become accustomed to shorter sentences, simpler arguments, a limited vocabulary; and has shown a preference for form over content, and style over facts.

Recently, there was a question on a public discussion group whether Socialism promised things that ultimately caused harm.

Now, obviously, the harm caused by anything is most frequently in the eye of the beholder.  The consequences of any sort of political action are many, and some of them are good, and some are bad, and whether the one outweighs the other is a matter of perspective.  Obamacare is a case in point.

*Thousands have gotten medical insurance, who did not have it before.
*Insurance companies have raised their rates, despite the fact that everyone coming on board for the first time has resulted in incredible increases in revenue.
*It is becoming increasingly clear how despicable the pricing of Insurance premiums is.  But bear in mind: classical free enterprise theory explicitly states that anything is worth the price people will pay for it.  This is one reason I detest classical free enterprise theory.
*The opposition of Conservatives and the GOP to Obamacare is being revealed as ultimately political.  In other words, they only pretend to oppose it because it is supposed to be bad policy; rather it is a notch in the gun of the Democrat Party, which is unpleasant for the GOP to admit.

Amidst all this, Bernie Sanders continues to put forward ideas that have been sidelined for decades: give teachers better wages; raise the minimum wage; repair roads and bridges and parts of the infrastructure that needs maintenance.  Strengthen Social Security.  Put curbs on the power of lobbyists.  Reverse the Citizen's United Supreme Court Decision.  Control the sales of firearms.

He gives the arguments that have been given for decades, which almost everyone outside the left wing of the Democrats (and a few idealists among the Socialists) rejected, saying that it would make the country a communist paradise.  But these ideas and arguments have not been put forward boldly.  They have been mumbled apologetically by Democrats who fully expected that they would be opposed.  But now Bernie Sanders is shouting them from figurative rooftops, and a new generation of Americans are hearing them for the first time.

Can it be true that there is someone who opposes the insane interest rates on student loans?  Is there really someone who thinks guns should be controlled, other than that crazy Obama?  Can there really be people out there who are for raising the minimum wage?  But won't that bankrupt businesses that depend of slave labor, such as fast food restaurants?

Is it possible someday that we could have a public transportation system that was cheap and reliable?  Us older folks have heard these ideas for ever, but some young people are hearing them for the first time, and it is possible that pretty soon it will not be a foregone conclusion that all these ideas will be rejected outright.

But to make simple, bold, unqualified statements ("unqualified" means without conditions; not that the statement is bad) is risky.  Simple-minded people love categorical statements, but categorical statements are usually false in the world in which we live.  When an intelligent politician makes a guarded statement, it is denounced as "too nuanced."  Nuanced means that the person says he or she will do something in certain circumstances.  How else is one to make a statement?  A bold statement is what George H. W. Bush made:  "Read my lips:  No New Taxes!"  Too bold.  He did put in new taxes.  He should have said:  "I will try my level best not to raise taxes, or institute new ones."  But that would have come across as wishy-washy.

Bill Clinton was well known for being cautious in his statements, or at least moderating them when questioned about them.  Well, he was bright enough to see that qualification was necessary most of the time, and honest enough to admit it, even if he is considered to have been a president of questionable integrity.  I believe that he was just about as honest as most presidents, though Obama appears to have set a high watermark for unimpeachable presidential conduct.

Arch