Post-Rhetoric

Pundits have long argued that the influence of corporate money and the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling equating political contributions with free speech have corrupted politics to the point that it depresses voter turnout (because of increased negative advertising) and discourages well qualified people from running (because of a disdain on behalf of prespective candidates for subjecting themselves and their families to such relentless scrutiny). These, along with other institutional factors, such as gerrymandering and a lack of term limits, have very real influences on making voters cynical of politicians and the whole political process. However, The 7-10 wishes to address another aspect of politics that, though underreported, may have more of an impact on turning voters off from politics in general.

The issue of which I speak is political rhetoric. More specifically, it's the lack of forethought regarding the consequences of adopting the "solutions" such rhetoric offers. While both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this, this blog post will focus primarily on Republicans' approach to governance because of their ascendancy in the wake of the 2010 elections, the strengthening of Republican-held seats in state legislatures, and the rise of the conservative Tea Party. Before going any further, it must be noted that there is merit in both conservative and liberal approaches to government. However, the problem is that politicians seem to adopt a myopic view that the practical consequences of their policies are less important than the advocay of these policies themselves. The end result is likely a frustrated electorate who feels their politicians lack the sophistication or seriousness necessary to confront our nation's challenges.

For example, Gallup recently released a poll showing that the number of Americans who consider themselves pro-life has exceeded the number of Americans who consider themselves pro-choice for the first time ever. During the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, many candidates talked about restricting access to abortion services, sometimes even in the cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's health is threatened. Claiming to be "pro-life" in all circumstances sounds noble from a public relations standpoint. After all, who doesn't support the "protection of innocent human life?" To be sure, a significant part of the conservative Republican base would cheer wildly at these promises to stamp out all abortions in the United States. Again, this is a legitimate political view.

The problem, however, lies in what happens next. In this case, pro-life-in-all-circumstances politicians tend not to address this. Suppose abortions became illegal in the United States. That's not going to stop women from having them. But if abortions are criminalized, then who would be punished for seeking, performing, or receiving them? Would you send a doctor to jail for performing a procedure that may be deemed medically necessary? If not jail, then would you subject such a doctor to fines that are expensive enough to deter other doctors from providing abortion services? Would these fines be passed onto patients in the form of higher health insurance costs or more expensive emergency room visits? What would happen to the women who sought abortions or attempted to perform them by themselves? Would they be sent to jail or fined? If "abortion is murder," would women receiving abortions be charged with first-degree murder because of the necessity of premeditation? If not murder, then what would be the name of the criminal charge that would presumably stay on such a woman's permanent record? And how would the fathers of the aborted fetuses be punished, if at all? And would the threat of government-mandated fines or jail time fly in the face of conservatives' "limited government" rhetoric?

A second example of crowd-pleasing rhetoric without addressing its very real consequences lies in the desire to "repeal government regulation." According to conservatives, individual liberty and prosperity are threatened by "job-killing regulations" and "big government telling you what to do." But regulations are needed to protect the majority from an irresponsible minority. Regulations exist in the form of toy safety standards, speed limits on interstate highways, and restrictions on what passengers can bring onto airplanes. The key difference between government and private businesses is that government's primary concern is the wellbeing of the entire society and nation it represents while private companies' primary concern is maximizing profits for its stakeholders. This is not to criticize the private sector as greedy or insensitive, but if your motive for conducting business is the financial wellbeing of the people who invested in your company or who have a financial stake in your company, the welfare of the people external to your company is either secondary or perhaps not a concern at all.

Take health care, for example. According to its website, the Department of Health and Human Services' mission is "protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves." A look at the website for BCBS, a leading private health insurance provider, states that its goal is "[to] regulate the Blue brand, administer licenses, and help coordinate national programs to the Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies so they may provide local leadership and solutions to promote safe, high quality and affordable care." There is nothing wrong with this at all.

But how is "safe, high quality and affordable care" ensured? Could "affordable care" be made even more affordable by eliminating government regulations concerning which services must be provided? What's to stop a health insurance company from using a lack of regulation to increase prices because of no regulation on price controls? A common conservative rallying cry is to "let the markets decide." But in the case of health insurance, for example, many companies have near monopolies in the states in which they operate. And would it not be more profitable for a private insurance company to cover fewer services while charging more for them? In the same vein, should we give motorists the freedom to drive 50 mph in a school zone, give passengers the freedom to carry loaded guns onto airplanes, and give toy companies the freedom to use lead-based paint in the toys they produce? What would be the recourse for people who are adversely impacted by the negligence of others who did not appreciate the downside to "unregulated" liberty? What if this lack of regulations actually led to an innocent's death? "Accepting personal responsibility" might punish an offender, but it might not protect the victim before it is too late.

Voters and especially journalists have a unique responsibility to challenge politicians not just on their political ideas, but on how these ideas should be executed in a practical sense. I would venture that answering questions directly and responding with a bit of thoroughness that suggests you are interested more in a political solution than merely a political issue would do more to engage voters in the political process and perhaps lead voters to develop a bit more respect for politicians and the art of politics in general. Sloganeering and rhetoric may move the base, but they do not solve problems and they do not address the concerns of the sophisticated sector of the electorate who wishes to move beyond unsubstantive talking points.