![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Winning Policy Speeches for Losers
Jul. 12th, 2011 07:36 pmLately, I've been working a bunch of overtime. My job doesn't grant me LJ access, to say the least. (We can, in fact, be fired for having a cell phone or MP3 player on our person that's actually on, but that's another can of silly.)
I've also been mulling the campaign speech of a new candidate that, rather than simply being elected, aims to, well, implement policies that run contrary to the zeitgeist of our current political currents and, like a spawning salmon, seed changes. Almost universally, these policies can be branded non-starters. Though I feel strongly they would work to improve the lives of a vast majority of Americans, entrenched forces would fight these policies until they die without even seeing press.
That's why I envision a radical candidate making a radical speech in a national medium, and putting these policy moves in his speech. He or she would have to be famous enough to actually get the speech covered, true; and the press would actually have to cover not just the bald spots, the stutters and the choice of garb but the content of the speech, also true.
The press would further have to be able to understand what the candidate is saying, and that proves for me the most problematical. The press are completely clueless about policy today. They are overworked, most are also underpaid, so they don't have the time to research individual policies, preferring instead to bounce new ideas off spin doctors of whatever stripe and simply rely on these pronouncements and conclusions, or to treat whack-job minority opinions with the same weight as the mainstream and call it "balance."
My problem is that I've been wanting to post the speech in a magnum opus post, but new policy angles keep rearing their heads. I've decided instead to give individual policy segments and save the lot under a new tag eponymous with this post's title. The tag implies directly that new and vibrant policy directions, if noted on the campaign trail, would disqualify the candidate from competition or office in the eyes of gatekeepers, and thus would never be mentioned. If you don't believe me, look at any presidential campaign from the last few and note the changes leading candidates had to make just to get the nod from their party — all of them. It's laughable.
I haven't decided if my candidate is running for a local, state or national office, so there will be inconsistencies in the policies as they apply. I hope you enjoy, or at least are enraged enough to comment.
( Let me pull up my stump. )
I've also been mulling the campaign speech of a new candidate that, rather than simply being elected, aims to, well, implement policies that run contrary to the zeitgeist of our current political currents and, like a spawning salmon, seed changes. Almost universally, these policies can be branded non-starters. Though I feel strongly they would work to improve the lives of a vast majority of Americans, entrenched forces would fight these policies until they die without even seeing press.
That's why I envision a radical candidate making a radical speech in a national medium, and putting these policy moves in his speech. He or she would have to be famous enough to actually get the speech covered, true; and the press would actually have to cover not just the bald spots, the stutters and the choice of garb but the content of the speech, also true.
The press would further have to be able to understand what the candidate is saying, and that proves for me the most problematical. The press are completely clueless about policy today. They are overworked, most are also underpaid, so they don't have the time to research individual policies, preferring instead to bounce new ideas off spin doctors of whatever stripe and simply rely on these pronouncements and conclusions, or to treat whack-job minority opinions with the same weight as the mainstream and call it "balance."
My problem is that I've been wanting to post the speech in a magnum opus post, but new policy angles keep rearing their heads. I've decided instead to give individual policy segments and save the lot under a new tag eponymous with this post's title. The tag implies directly that new and vibrant policy directions, if noted on the campaign trail, would disqualify the candidate from competition or office in the eyes of gatekeepers, and thus would never be mentioned. If you don't believe me, look at any presidential campaign from the last few and note the changes leading candidates had to make just to get the nod from their party — all of them. It's laughable.
I haven't decided if my candidate is running for a local, state or national office, so there will be inconsistencies in the policies as they apply. I hope you enjoy, or at least are enraged enough to comment.
( Let me pull up my stump. )
