[buridan]

I think Steyn (and you) are right. Another way to put it: Romney ran a “talking points” campaign without much depth and explanation. If Lincoln could make serious arguments to untutored farmers, I don’t see why contemporary candidates can’t to our more- (if ill-) schooled voters. Thomas Sowell has also argued for more substance in campaigns.

[Catsrus]

On the other hand, Obama didn’t run on any agenda except FORWARD. Not even a plan for a 2nd term. I guess he didn’t need it - instead, he just bashed Romney and made what he thought were cute remarks about Big Bird, Romnesia, etc.

Yet, people expected Romney to go into details about his plan. If he had done that - then the media would have torn him to shreds. Heck, they did anyway. And, not knowing who he would have as cabinet members or elected Senators, etc., it would be difficult to lay out specifics.

This is my opinion, for what its worth.

[loveliberty2]

Your point is well taken. We might remember that the 85 essays of Madison, Hamilton and Jay, known as THE FEDERALIST, were written for consumption by farmers and ordinary citizens as explanations of the Constitution and its protections for their rights and liberties.

We must take into account, however, the depth of understanding possessed by the authors of those essays, as well as their passion and commitment to the ideas of liberty. Where are we to find candidates of such perception and devotion to liberty today?

Perhaps an appeal to Divine Providence is in order.

[hopespringseternal]

If Lincoln could make serious arguments to untutored farmers, I don’t see why contemporary candidates can’t to our more- (if ill-) schooled voters.

Untutored farmers could think circles around the pigs with their faces buried in the federal handout trough Republicans today have to contend with.