Why are so few politicians ever pro something rather than anti-somethi

[Machjo]

It seems that every election, most politicians say little about themselves and the ideas they have to improving society, and instead are exsessively focussed on talking about their opponents' faults. Why coudl a politician not just ignore the jabs of his opponents, take the high road and focus instead on discussing his own policy proposals and leave his opponents alone? Where are those politicians?

[M.Dancer]

So ummmm? Mulruney wasn't PRO free trade?

Trudeau wasn't PRO repatriotating the constitution?

[Argus]

It seems that every election, most politicians say little about themselves and the ideas they have to improving society, and instead are exsessively focussed on talking about their opponents' faults. Why coudl a politician not just ignore the jabs of his opponents, take the high road and focus instead on discussing his own policy proposals and leave his opponents alone? Where are those politicians?

Discussing policy proposals means you first have to have decided on a program, and flesh out how it's going to work. Every program has winners and losers. Some will get money or attention, and some will not. Some will agree with it and some will not. That means you please some, but antagonize others. Politicians prefer to make broad statements which many people can interpret as supporting their views. Broad feel-good statements really don't commit them to anything, but on the other hand, they don't satisfy the media. The media wants details and cost assesments, and how you're going to pay for these programs or policies. Yet any national program is going to extremely complex and be hard to explain in a sound bite. And the media will always be looking for a good story. The best story, of course, is one which will outrage people. So they'll be looking for what part of your program will make some people scream. Then they'll go to those people, tell them about it, and record their screams. You'll be left defending your policy in the face of attacks from these people (whoever they are) and the media.

It's so very much easier to simply attack the other guy, and much easier to make it into a good, quick sound bite.

[Argus]

So ummmm? Mulruney wasn't PRO free trade?

Trudeau wasn't PRO repatriotating the constitution?

Correct me if I'm wrong but Mulroney defended free trade in an election - after he'd negotiated it. He never mentioned it when he was running for office. Trudeau likewise had to defend what he'd already done afterward. He didn't go into an election saying "Hey, I have an idea. Let's change the constitution!"

[Oleg Bach]

It seems that every election, most politicians say little about themselves and the ideas they have to improving society, and instead are exsessively focussed on talking about their opponents' faults. Why coudl a politician not just ignore the jabs of his opponents, take the high road and focus instead on discussing his own policy proposals and leave his opponents alone? Where are those politicians?

There are very few politicals that are blessed with at least a minor messiah complex. Most are not aware of the old fashioned principle of service and the idea of personal sacrafice is far from their minds. It's like the movie actor syndrome, or the idolize me rock star phenomena. Its all about glory and being a "somebody"...it's about blinding ambition - it's about competing against the other wanna be greats..so it all ends with one putting the other down - as with our advesarial court system, our political system is about us and them..the enemy and you! AND nothing gets done..other than the game. Ignaitieff might have it right when he says that Harper and his friends think that every other team is the enemy - like it's a damned team sport - Like Harper is living his dream of being on a high end hockey team..

[Machjo]

So ummmm? Mulruney wasn't PRO free trade?

Trudeau wasn't PRO repatriotating the constitution?

What about now?

[Oleg Bach]

What about now?

Now if they are pro-pan american union - they just don't blurt it out..the situation is much more covert these days. It's not what they say in public it is what they do not say...the do not say is the "pro" group. The out spoken negative rhetoricals is and "anti" group...I would be more worried about who is pro what and not saying it.

[Machjo]

Now if they are pro-pan american union - they just don't blurt it out..the situation is much more covert these days.

Hey, I'd rather a candidate be pro-pan-American Union than anti-American. Again, at least he'd stand FOR soemthing instead of AGAINST something. If he wants to be pro-Canadian-sovereignty, fine, but not anti-American. They could learn something from both the pro-choice and pro-life movements. You'll notice they are both focussed on being for life or choice as the case may be. Neither side is anti-life and neither side is anti-choice. They know how to present a positive view of something at least, regardless which side you're on.

It's not what they say in public it is what they do not say...the do not say is the "pro" group. The out spoken negative rhetoricals is and "anti" group...I would be more worried about who is pro what and not saying it.

My point exactly. I don't want to know what my candidate is against. That says nothing to me. I want to know what he's for. Now here's the thing. I couldn't care less if my candidate was pro-death-camps. Of course I wouldn't vote for him, and would be fearful if he won, but would at least appreciate his honesty.

[Machjo]

But really, is it asking too much to know what a politician is for rather than against? I don't want to know what my candidates are against, yet that's all they seem to talk about. I want to know what they're for.

[Oleg Bach]

But really, is it asking too much to know what a politician is for rather than against? I don't want to know what my candidates are against, yet that's all they seem to talk about. I want to know what they're for.

No substance no vision and no dream - where are the dreamers we need?

[Machjo]

No substance no vision and no dream - where are the dreamers we need?

You do have a point there. We have idealists with no footing in reality, or alternatively realists with no ideal whatsoever. Where are the pragmatic idealists when we need them?

[kimmy]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Mulroney defended free trade in an election - after he'd negotiated it. He never mentioned it when he was running for office.

Nonetheless, Canadians got to vote for, or against, a politician who was campaigning with the promise of implementing something big if he won. That the groundwork was laid during the first term doesn't alter the fact that the voter had the opportunity to vote for or against a big, ambitious policy.

You sort of approached this from a different side earlier today when you wrote about how elections are being fought on personality these days because nobody seems to have any *ideas* worth fighting an election over.

So ummmm? Mulruney wasn't PRO free trade?

Trudeau wasn't PRO repatriotating the constitution?

Still, that was 20 plus years ago. Is there nothing new or bold for today's leaders to offer the electorate? Or is new and bold just too scary for voters who really just wish they lived in simpler times?

-k

[Moonlight Graham]

It seems that every election, most politicians say little about themselves and the ideas they have to improving society, and instead are exsessively focussed on talking about their opponents' faults. Why coudl a politician not just ignore the jabs of his opponents, take the high road and focus instead on discussing his own policy proposals and leave his opponents alone? Where are those politicians?

Negative attacks have more impact in shifting poll opinions than positive ones. That's why so many sling the mud. Polls consistently show that people hate negative attacks and mud slinging ads (don't we all?), but at the end of the day they are effective in influencing public opinion.

[Machjo]

Negative attacks have more impact in shifting poll opinions than positive ones. That's why so many sling the mud. Polls consistently show that people hate negative attacks and mud slinging ads (don't we all?), but at the end of the day they are effective in influencing public opinion.

... and destroying the country in the long-run.

[Machjo]

And of course the same applies to voters. Too many voters vote against a candidate, especially prevalent among strategic voters. Again, can't they vote for a candidate on principle instead of against a candidate strategically?

[Moonlight Graham]

And of course the same applies to voters. Too many voters vote against a candidate, especially prevalent among strategic voters. Again, can't they vote for a candidate on principle instead of against a candidate strategically?

That is a bit hard when there isn't anyone decent and principled to vote for.

[Machjo]

That is a bit hard when there isn't anyone decent and principled to vote for.

True. One possible solution would be to require each ballot to include an empty line at the bottom where we could write in the name of the local citizen of our choice.

[Argus]

Nonetheless, Canadians got to vote for, or against, a politician who was campaigning with the promise of implementing something big if he won. That the groundwork was laid during the first term doesn't alter the fact that the voter had the opportunity to vote for or against a big, ambitious policy.

My point was that Mulroney never presented this BEFORE he got elected the first time. I'm sure it was in the back of his mind somewhere, but he kept it quiet until he had his whopping big majority. Then he set out to negotiate free trade, and try and persuade the people of its wisdom. With the deal all-but done (and having spent quite a lot of effort publicizing its importance already) he had little alternative but to defend it in an election, and of course, the Liberals, having no policies, attacked his (not unusual for oppositions). Had Mulroney a choice, though, he probably would have finished up and had it a done deal before he went to another election.

You sort of approached this from a different side earlier today when you wrote about how elections are being fought on personality these days because nobody seems to have any *ideas* worth fighting an election over.

My point there was that what passes for collective wisdom among the major political parties seems to be saying that you have to keep things very simple during elections, not go into complicated policies, and generally attack the other guy - because it's easier. Kim Campbell once famously, and revealingly said that an election was no time to be talking about issues. It was a stupid statement, for which she was ridiculed. Yet that seems to be the way the major politicians operate.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Argus