WELL YOU see, John Q. Public, it's complicated. That's what Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) and Vice President Al Gore have been telling us for well over a year. They would be happy to sit down and tell us the details of their plans for the power of the Oval Office, but it's too complicated to tackle in the short time we have today. (Add large honest smile.) Recently, however, someone called their bluff.
I never thought I'd say this, but hooray for FOX News. On Friday, Oct. 27, 10 days before the election, FOX gave both of the candidates exactly what they've been saying they wanted - half an hour each to sit and talk directly to the American public without moderators, directed questions, or opponents breathing down their necks. Half an hour of empty air to tape a pre-written response saying whatever they pleased, no commercial interruption, and have it piped into the voters' living rooms.
Their performances were miserable, and their bluffs were proven to be exactly what many commentators have guessed: empty.
|
Gore won the coin toss and elected to go first, and he put up a very pretty picture. Makeup, great lighting and a red power tie were just the backdrop to the even prettier words. Gore said his plan is great, how it's "good for American families," how much better life can be with him as president. He didn't tell us why.
He said "values" at least five times. He spoke of happy, educated children, elderly free from worry, a middle class without a care in the world and eager to send their well-educated, well-behaved children off to college, with a little government help, of course. He did not tell us, however, exactly what that "help" is.
In his 20 minute speech, Gore spent most of his time on "glittering generalities," or happy thoughts, about what we can be. We can have a more fair system for the middle class citizens - sounds good. We can have no more deficits when he's president, and no debt in 12 years - great idea. We'll have low interest rates and "smarter government" - wonderful. But Mr. Vice President, how? A magic calculator? Extensive meditation? During his allotted time, he never explained his too-complex-for-a-stump-speech plan that would get us to this shining city.
In fact, he spent more time explaining the details of his opponent's plan and then telling us why they were wrong. His one attempt at specificity still left many questions unanswered: He spent a few seconds rattling off numbers for his pet Social Security "lockbox," but left out the vital points of where the money will be invested, what exactly qualifies as "saving," and what happens to those who can't save anything.
Still not enough time? Gore stopped 5 minutes short of his cut-off, yet he managed to list Bush's record in Texas and a revisionist view of the governor's tax plan. In the same time, he could have told thousands of people the good things he's done, described his own voting record, or more thoroughly explained his ideas for the tax system.
Bush wasn't much better, though he did manage to use all of his 25 minutes and explain his plan for reforming the school system. Of course, his substance was also interspersed with talk of "the hopes of families" and sticking up for American values - there's that word again. It's ironic that this is one issue that can't be legislated. He also talked about Texas and touched on his ideas for taxes, but he didn't say anywhere near enough.
If anyone has some explaining to do to the majority of voters, it's the crafters of Bush's tax plan. They were handed a golden opportunity to describe - in detail - why they think an even-handed tax cut is best for America, but instead Bush spent his time attempting to poke holes in Gore's tax scheme.
No wonder these guys got Cs at Harvard and Yale. They wouldn't fare much better writing essays with that sort of content at the University today, even if it wasn't Prof. Larry J. Sabato posing the questions. Any TA could give these guys a valuable lesson in rhetoric.
They should present an idea, discuss how they implemented it, describe the policy that emerged, and then brag on its success or explain what could have been done better. If they insist on projecting grand schemes, then they need to use demonstrative statistics and show a logical - and practical - chain of events that could actually lead to such a policy.
The fluff with these two candidates is the same - each talked about prosperous times, happy families, healthy people and smart children. But underneath the glitter and promises are some very real, tangible policy differences. That makes it all the more important that they seize opportunities like this one - free, uninterrupted air time - to present a coherent picture to their potential constituents. Otherwise, John Q. gets lost in the glittery catch phrases and "fuzzy math" of "compassionate conservatism," and makes his choice depending on whose commercial he heard last.
(Emily Harding's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 5 hours agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
