Two of the important "non-issues" of the recent Presidential election brought to our attention are poverty and the expected vacancies on the Supreme Court. The similarity I see between these is that both candidates saw the potential for getting into trouble with the populace for elucidating their stands on the issues. Certainly, informed voters can guess that a Democratic President would appoint more progressive judges, a Republican more conservative ones. But I think there was an unspoken agreement between the candidates and their parties to avoid discussion of the impact of a changing Court on issues such as abortion. They wished to steer clear of alienating the voters whose allegiance might be easily shaken.
Similarly, voters know that a Democratic leader may be more willing to spend the country's money on assisting the poor among us. But a discussion of poverty can get awfully "sticky" for both sides. Nobody wants to be viewed as facilitating intergenerational transmission of poverty or welfare dependence. On the other hand, while a Republican leader would be expected to reduce the size of government and keep tighter control of the nation's funds, the candidate wouldn't want to be seen as insensitive or cruel by declining to help those genuinely in need.
It doesn't surprise me that Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney and their VP choices were reluctant to engage in a discussion of issues that are potentially inflammatory and divisive as well as difficult to "solve." But, how can we explain the media's acquiescence in this decision?
No comments:
Post a Comment