Serious question: Should campaigns Reflect or Educate about the conventional wisdom?

[Armstead]

There is a constant theme in elections, at least in recent years.

Should politicians and their campaigns reflect what seems to be the dominant conventional wisdom? Or shouldf politicians shed light on issues and try to lead the public in a direction?

It's difficult to discuss this in the context of the current campaigns without filtering it through one's own biases. However, that basic tension is a template that often reemerges in every new campaign season.

It is somewhat of a variant on the stale "pragmatism vs ideological purity" argument. However it is much more complex than that. It's also about how candidates (and their supporters) treat each other.

I'd rather see what otehrs might think, so I'll avoid my own admittedly biased analysis of the current campaigns in this OP (although I reserve the right to get more specific if any discussion ensues).

In genreal terms, however, I believe education and public discussion should be a key to campaigns. Politics should shed light on issues and problems and solutions that might otherwise be either ignored or distorted. It should not just be a referendum on who we "like" personally as voters.

Instead, it should be a process in which the candidates represent positions and messages, and serve to stimulate discussions of that. If a candidate says "I like Apple Pie and I believe in the right of every American to eat Apple Pie," that's not good enough.

That's why I am more tolerant of what sometimes gets dismissed as "ideological purity." I am not an ideological purist, as I realize that circumstanbces require a mix of approaches. HOWEVER, I do believe there has to be a clear ideological underpinning to elections and candidates, to actually give people choices, and to highlight what those choices actually mean....That involves taking risks and being blunt.

Anyone have any thoughts on this question?

[sam sarrha]

1. 'conventional wisdom' is an oxymoran.. it is nothing but bare ass'd NeoCon lies

[rucky]

2. Show me what you've done - don't tell me what you would do.

that's my standard. It's how I'd conduct a job interview for anything but an entry-level position. Achievements trump ideas for the highest position in the land - but you have to have both, and they have to be evidenced by how well a candidate comes up with and implements solutions.

Issues are something we should be talking about more often than once every four years. They should be driven from the bottom-up through activism - not from the top-down by mandate. The candidate needs to show the ability to respond to concerns of the electorate - but not just in an election year.

[Armstead]

4. That's the "personally like" factor, which is a different part of it

I agree that the qualifications and prior behavior of a particular candidate is important. However, I'm asking something besides that.

Another way of putting what I'm saying (or asking) is whether any candidate should be willing to step up and encapsulate the issues they stand for in a very direct way -- rather than trying to appease "conventional wisdom" simply to get elected.

There's a risk in that, but it's not only for the candidates.

Should, for example, all of the Democratic candidates have gotten together and refused to participate in these dog-and-pony shows that the cable networks have staged as "debates"? Should they have set up ground rules that actually encouraged debate and discussion among all of the candidates -- rather than having to pack everything into 30 second soundbytes?

[rucky]

5. I hear ya... and agree completely.

They're letting the media create these bullshit issues (gay marriage, drivers licenses), and all the sudden it becomes a focus of the campaign. The candidates play along, then lose control of their own agenda and what they stand for - we never really get to hear it. The fear for them being that if one candidate takes the bait, all the others must follow suit, or be labeled as dodgy and evasive - Wolf's bullshit "yes or no" on driver's licenses is the classic example. The best individual responses to those questions is to call bullshit and bring up a real related issue. If all the candidates did that, the media wouldn't be able to control the agenda.

[Armstead]

6. What really works is when candidates can actually talk

Imagine a debate in which each candidate was asked a very basic question about, say, their ideas for improving health care, and all had five minutes to answer....Followed by an actual panel discussion in which they could challenge and trade ideas about it -- as an actual discussion rather than a gotcha fest.

That would be less "exciting" but it would be far more interesting and engaging and informative. It would also help the candidates convey what they stand for.

[neutron]

3. Education is the way to go

Didn't hurt gore one bit.

[nashville_brook]

7. leaders need to be engage issues from the inside out -- as leaders they must

speak the language of conventional wisdom in order to educate. if there's "reason" behind ideological purity, then a leader will be able to convey this in a manner that rallies the masses.

if there's no reason behind the ideological purity, as with Pelosi's treatment of impeachment, the masses will depart.