Electorate Manipulation?
As though it's something new. Haven't politicians always gone out of their way to manipulate public opinion to their advantage? It comes with the territory. We sometimes wonder at the calibre of the people who stand up to represent us as elected representatives. It must take a special kind of person who will decide to offer up their life to politics. That person can be highly intelligent or a bit of dim bulb, yet capable of learning the ropes and setting themselves forward as our political elite.
We've had people of high intelligence and even higher moral standards whose words can be believed, but when they've told us things that they felt we should be adult enough to hear we've rejected them. In favour of promises never meant to be kept, seductively offered to us by less wise but certainly more foxy candidates who soon learn to spout what they know people would prefer to hear. One hardly knows what is more true, that people will believe whatever they want to believe, or that politicians are not be trusted.
What is amazing, though, is that the most trivial manoeuvres can be undertaken to blight peoples' opinions against rival candidates, and people tend to accept that. One politician can accuse another of not having the best interest of the country and the electorate at heart, and the other can turn around and repeat the charge, and that kind of schoolyard bullying is found to be acceptable in the political arena. Or the dredging up of old, and sometimes completely irrelevant 'facts' or 'behaviours' and bringing them to the deleterious light of day.
And then there are the silly little deceits and practises that serve more to illuminate the mind-set of the practitioner than even he would recognize. Like, sad to say, resorting to childish tactics such as changing the colours of official government web sites, or official stationery or publications to reflect a colour normally related to one political party or the other, rather than accepting that the government is not a party, not meant to be partisan, it is an elected entity of public trust.
Which brings to mind the idiocy of an incoming political party as the new government of the day using clumsy nomenclature to re-brand government, so that the Government of Canada can become "Canada's New Government". Silly beyond belief. These little mind games are relevant to children perhaps or to dim-minded antagonists, but should never represent the concerns of intelligent adults.
The government platform should be out front and centre and everything should flow from that. That the government views its duty to reflect the needs of the country and its population, to enact and uphold legislation which mirrors our collective requirements as a pluralistic society, as an ever-emerging cohesive society with distinctly communal needs. To nudge the country toward a sustainable economic future, without disabling our environment.
Playing to the crowd by enunciating support for popular and respected values and traditions is not required by government; that support should be well understood and reflected in the method of governance. Neither should controlling access to information and news about government, its decisions and initiatives, become an issue in an information-free society. Ministers of the Crown, appointed by the prime minister of the day should be able to freely address issues of the day relevant to their ministries through the news media.
The advent of 'political communications directors' working within the offices of cabinet ministers create another layer of obfuscation, where only the information that is considered to be harmless to discuss, air or view is made available for public inspection; hardly transparent and honest communication.
On the other hand, there's nothing new under the sun. All politicians want to be elected, want to assume a position of power and prestige and to that end personalities are cautiously leashed and public declarations kept to the acceptable minimum lathered in innocuous statement. Little wonder politicians are held in such low esteem.
Yet if we know as much as we claim we should and would like to, we unerringly select the shallow rather than the deep, the facade rather than the substance. We're not much of an improvement over politicians, come to think of it.
We've had people of high intelligence and even higher moral standards whose words can be believed, but when they've told us things that they felt we should be adult enough to hear we've rejected them. In favour of promises never meant to be kept, seductively offered to us by less wise but certainly more foxy candidates who soon learn to spout what they know people would prefer to hear. One hardly knows what is more true, that people will believe whatever they want to believe, or that politicians are not be trusted.
What is amazing, though, is that the most trivial manoeuvres can be undertaken to blight peoples' opinions against rival candidates, and people tend to accept that. One politician can accuse another of not having the best interest of the country and the electorate at heart, and the other can turn around and repeat the charge, and that kind of schoolyard bullying is found to be acceptable in the political arena. Or the dredging up of old, and sometimes completely irrelevant 'facts' or 'behaviours' and bringing them to the deleterious light of day.
And then there are the silly little deceits and practises that serve more to illuminate the mind-set of the practitioner than even he would recognize. Like, sad to say, resorting to childish tactics such as changing the colours of official government web sites, or official stationery or publications to reflect a colour normally related to one political party or the other, rather than accepting that the government is not a party, not meant to be partisan, it is an elected entity of public trust.
Which brings to mind the idiocy of an incoming political party as the new government of the day using clumsy nomenclature to re-brand government, so that the Government of Canada can become "Canada's New Government". Silly beyond belief. These little mind games are relevant to children perhaps or to dim-minded antagonists, but should never represent the concerns of intelligent adults.
The government platform should be out front and centre and everything should flow from that. That the government views its duty to reflect the needs of the country and its population, to enact and uphold legislation which mirrors our collective requirements as a pluralistic society, as an ever-emerging cohesive society with distinctly communal needs. To nudge the country toward a sustainable economic future, without disabling our environment.
Playing to the crowd by enunciating support for popular and respected values and traditions is not required by government; that support should be well understood and reflected in the method of governance. Neither should controlling access to information and news about government, its decisions and initiatives, become an issue in an information-free society. Ministers of the Crown, appointed by the prime minister of the day should be able to freely address issues of the day relevant to their ministries through the news media.
The advent of 'political communications directors' working within the offices of cabinet ministers create another layer of obfuscation, where only the information that is considered to be harmless to discuss, air or view is made available for public inspection; hardly transparent and honest communication.
On the other hand, there's nothing new under the sun. All politicians want to be elected, want to assume a position of power and prestige and to that end personalities are cautiously leashed and public declarations kept to the acceptable minimum lathered in innocuous statement. Little wonder politicians are held in such low esteem.
Yet if we know as much as we claim we should and would like to, we unerringly select the shallow rather than the deep, the facade rather than the substance. We're not much of an improvement over politicians, come to think of it.
Labels: Inconvenient Politics
posted by Pieface | 5:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home