I just finished “Public Opinion” by Walter Lippmann. It was written in the early twenties. According to that reading a politician who is plainly spoken and says something precisely and unambiguously will most likely lose. As an example of brilliant winning ambiguity Lippmann analyses Wilson’s fourteen points. They were an example of vagueness wherein each point meant something different to the man who read it because they were written is such a way as to let that man project on them his preconceived notion of what they meant. To a Democrat they were interpreted one way and to a Republican another. To a Frenchman they meant one thing to a Brit another. They were brilliantly crafted so that each faction could accept them but only with their interpretation.
Obama used simply hope and change. To each person who heard them those words were imbued with the listener’s interpretation of what they meant. The right is so fractionated that a precise and unambiguous speech will inevitably alienate one or more of the many factions. Such a speech will inevitably also lose the middle ground voter as well. Any precise statement of intent will also be picked up and amplified by the opposition.
We must elect good men of good character and then trust that they will do what we consider the right thing. Sorry about that. But ambiguity is the only way to win an election.
That stuff is old hat. Dems no longer screw around with pedestrian "vote-tampering." They mobilize the full force of the government to harass and destroy conservative opposition.
In fact, Dems openly attribute that they did not do worse in 2012 b/c of their ability to use the IRS to suppress these groups.
One WSJ writer pointed out, the Dems used “reverse engineering”...analyzing what was most successful in destroying conservative groups, and then writing it into current law.
And what's more astounding is that Dems are heralded by the Entitlement Crowd for this so-called "ability"----it's why Boobamba seems unconcerned as 2014-16 approach.
>> a politician who is plainly spoken and says something precisely and unambiguously will most likely lose.
Of course, and those politicians do indeed lose. This is not the request.
The term “specifics” is expressed in the vein of “accountability”.
Then again, there was the American Revolution and then, there was the French Revolution - 2 different animals.
Time for some clear talk. Otherwise the opposition will continue to define us and put words in our mouths.
Speak the truth.