Recent Presidential elections have illuminated the shortcomings of the elective process. Our electorate has regularly been left with a choice of who they perceive to be the lesser evil, rather than who they feel is the best candidate.Wrong Speak Publishing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
> Personally, I’d like to see all political advertising banned, though I can’t see a path to that (please share if you can think of one). Commercials waste millions of dollars, ensure that only the wealthy can influence elections, and work to twist and obfuscate the truth to paint a prettier picture of a candidate - not to mention how damned annoying they are. Most Americans don’t have the time to research and fact-check every item raised, so they are forced to absorb what’s slathered onto them. Generally, it’s all bullshit.
Aside from throwing out the first amendment out the window that would have nearly the opposite effect you describe. First it would mean only those people who are already independently famous would have a chance.
Also the election process is supposed to be adversarial, the idea is that it's in each candidate's interest to call out his opponent's BS.
> Most Americans don’t have the time to research and fact-check every item raised
Which is why it's so important that candidates have the ability to use ads to bring relevant things to voters' attention.
Legitimate points, Eugine, but I don't fully agree with the cause/effect you presume. As opposed to "only the already independently famous", I feel this would start all the candidates on a more even slate. We can't change that some people are more well-known than others, but this would help to have them all working from the same toolbox. Sure, some are more recognizable from the start - that already happens, and is unavoidable - but for voters to be able to judge them all based on a side-by-side comparison of their policy proposals rather than professionally marketed mudslinging would give those voters a clearer understanding of just who they were supporting.
Just because I'm not a fan of political mudslinging doesn't mean I think it should be banned - people, even candidates, have the right to say whatever they want to. Of course candidates should be permitted to call out each other's BS - that's what the debates are for. That will continue to happen organically, since we can't control what they will say when asked a question. They will have to decide for themselves the value of attacking their opponents versus selling their policies in the time they have allotted, and those decisions will be quite telling for those who watch.
As for your last point, the next time I see a "relevant thing" brought to anyone's attention in an ad, it will be the first.
Really appreciate your well thought out response. Good food for thought. ZL
> but for voters to be able to judge them all based on a side-by-side comparison of their policy proposals
That requires that they be able to criticize such other's policy proposals. Also, judging on the basis of policy proposals isn't enough. Any policy implemented will inevitably be very different from the pre-election proposals. Thus the candidates themselves matter, and so does criticism of their character, i.e., what you describe as "mud slinging".
> As for your last point, the next time I see a "relevant thing" brought to anyone's attention in an ad, it will be the first.
Between ad-block and no longer watching TV, I haven't seen an ad in over a decade. But back when they frequently brought up important issues.
Tim Pool had the best way. You take the R or D off the ballot leaving just the name since most people don't even look at the name they just look for those two letters.
I've stopped watching the debates because they don't matter. They are nothing more than middle school playground fights where solutions get lost in the name calling and other personal attacks. Meanwhile, the DNC won't allow anyone to run against Biden? No debates for Biden? So much for we the people. As the "uniparty" becomes stronger and stronger, any outsider is looked at as a threat to their ability to make money and pursue policies that... make them more money. We the people are so blind and under informed that we'll continue to hold our nose and vote for trash instead of garbage, even though they smell the same. I love your ideas, but until another revolution occurs, we the people will have to continue to live with the trash we elect hoping it stops smelling as bad as the garbage we threw out. Money is the thing keeping many people with great ideas and who believe in this country, from running for any office.
But we can't lose hope for the future. Sharing good ideas is how they spread, just as many of the bad ideas we currently live with spread in the past. More on this to come soon. Thanks for your perspectives, and please share with as many as you can. More free stuff at:
I've come to the point where watching any politician makes me cringe. I literally cannot do it for more than a few seconds at a time. The recent State of the Union speech. It's like trying to watch a snake eat sh*t. I can't stand it.
I am liking this. A start to a conversation to a better way to get the leaders the people need and want. Let’s continue. And hurry. We should not have to vote Biden or Trump again when most of us want someone new.
Agreed. For all the superfluous nonsense that advocates will allow to be the hills they die on, simple remedies to the systems which decide who actually makes our laws are just glossed over. It's time for change. More on this in a future article. Thanks for your comments. ZL
> It would be so simple to cap campaign financing funds, ban political advertising, and legally limit campaigning to personal appearances, debates, and published policies (like websites). The policy proposals would be released publicly by a certain date, and anyone polling above 1% thereafter would be eligible for the debates.
Would that also include a ban on political discussions by celebrities, influencers, bloggers or anyone with an audience? Otherwise all you're doing is helping those with the connections to arrange "unofficial advertising".
I get what you're saying in theory, but the reality is that all presidential candidates are in demand for interviews and such, so it would balance out to some degree on its own. So no, I don't think this should include such a ban as you describe.
There's no perfect system, and I don't pretend that my suggestions are perfect either. But we should still strive for improvement, even incrementally. Anything that gets us a step closer to electing the best candidate who is the people's actual choice is a step in the right direction. Thanks for your comments. ZL
😂 I know it's not really funny - it's pathetic, in fact.
But "It's like trying to watch a snake eat sh*t" - well, bravo.
> Personally, I’d like to see all political advertising banned, though I can’t see a path to that (please share if you can think of one). Commercials waste millions of dollars, ensure that only the wealthy can influence elections, and work to twist and obfuscate the truth to paint a prettier picture of a candidate - not to mention how damned annoying they are. Most Americans don’t have the time to research and fact-check every item raised, so they are forced to absorb what’s slathered onto them. Generally, it’s all bullshit.
Aside from throwing out the first amendment out the window that would have nearly the opposite effect you describe. First it would mean only those people who are already independently famous would have a chance.
Also the election process is supposed to be adversarial, the idea is that it's in each candidate's interest to call out his opponent's BS.
> Most Americans don’t have the time to research and fact-check every item raised
Which is why it's so important that candidates have the ability to use ads to bring relevant things to voters' attention.
Legitimate points, Eugine, but I don't fully agree with the cause/effect you presume. As opposed to "only the already independently famous", I feel this would start all the candidates on a more even slate. We can't change that some people are more well-known than others, but this would help to have them all working from the same toolbox. Sure, some are more recognizable from the start - that already happens, and is unavoidable - but for voters to be able to judge them all based on a side-by-side comparison of their policy proposals rather than professionally marketed mudslinging would give those voters a clearer understanding of just who they were supporting.
Just because I'm not a fan of political mudslinging doesn't mean I think it should be banned - people, even candidates, have the right to say whatever they want to. Of course candidates should be permitted to call out each other's BS - that's what the debates are for. That will continue to happen organically, since we can't control what they will say when asked a question. They will have to decide for themselves the value of attacking their opponents versus selling their policies in the time they have allotted, and those decisions will be quite telling for those who watch.
As for your last point, the next time I see a "relevant thing" brought to anyone's attention in an ad, it will be the first.
Really appreciate your well thought out response. Good food for thought. ZL
> but for voters to be able to judge them all based on a side-by-side comparison of their policy proposals
That requires that they be able to criticize such other's policy proposals. Also, judging on the basis of policy proposals isn't enough. Any policy implemented will inevitably be very different from the pre-election proposals. Thus the candidates themselves matter, and so does criticism of their character, i.e., what you describe as "mud slinging".
> As for your last point, the next time I see a "relevant thing" brought to anyone's attention in an ad, it will be the first.
Between ad-block and no longer watching TV, I haven't seen an ad in over a decade. But back when they frequently brought up important issues.
Tim Pool had the best way. You take the R or D off the ballot leaving just the name since most people don't even look at the name they just look for those two letters.
Sad but true...
I've stopped watching the debates because they don't matter. They are nothing more than middle school playground fights where solutions get lost in the name calling and other personal attacks. Meanwhile, the DNC won't allow anyone to run against Biden? No debates for Biden? So much for we the people. As the "uniparty" becomes stronger and stronger, any outsider is looked at as a threat to their ability to make money and pursue policies that... make them more money. We the people are so blind and under informed that we'll continue to hold our nose and vote for trash instead of garbage, even though they smell the same. I love your ideas, but until another revolution occurs, we the people will have to continue to live with the trash we elect hoping it stops smelling as bad as the garbage we threw out. Money is the thing keeping many people with great ideas and who believe in this country, from running for any office.
True on every count, Cecil.
But we can't lose hope for the future. Sharing good ideas is how they spread, just as many of the bad ideas we currently live with spread in the past. More on this to come soon. Thanks for your perspectives, and please share with as many as you can. More free stuff at:
https://substack.com/profile/130055804-zephareth-ledbetter?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Appreciate your input. ZL
I've come to the point where watching any politician makes me cringe. I literally cannot do it for more than a few seconds at a time. The recent State of the Union speech. It's like trying to watch a snake eat sh*t. I can't stand it.
I am liking this. A start to a conversation to a better way to get the leaders the people need and want. Let’s continue. And hurry. We should not have to vote Biden or Trump again when most of us want someone new.
Agreed. For all the superfluous nonsense that advocates will allow to be the hills they die on, simple remedies to the systems which decide who actually makes our laws are just glossed over. It's time for change. More on this in a future article. Thanks for your comments. ZL
Really? I found the post to be a collection of trite cliches that sound vaguely good but turn out to be wrong on closer inspection.
> It would be so simple to cap campaign financing funds, ban political advertising, and legally limit campaigning to personal appearances, debates, and published policies (like websites). The policy proposals would be released publicly by a certain date, and anyone polling above 1% thereafter would be eligible for the debates.
Would that also include a ban on political discussions by celebrities, influencers, bloggers or anyone with an audience? Otherwise all you're doing is helping those with the connections to arrange "unofficial advertising".
I get what you're saying in theory, but the reality is that all presidential candidates are in demand for interviews and such, so it would balance out to some degree on its own. So no, I don't think this should include such a ban as you describe.
There's no perfect system, and I don't pretend that my suggestions are perfect either. But we should still strive for improvement, even incrementally. Anything that gets us a step closer to electing the best candidate who is the people's actual choice is a step in the right direction. Thanks for your comments. ZL
> I get what you're saying in theory, but the reality is that all presidential candidates are in demand for interviews
Some interviews are basically puff pieces, other are hostile interviews where the host barely lets the candidate get a word in edgewise.
> There's no perfect system, and I don't pretend that my suggestions are perfect either.
Your system would make things worse.
I respect everyone's opinions, but based on the feedback here and elsewhere, you're in the minority. Still, always open to constructive criticism.
> you're in the minority.
Doesn't mean I'm wrong.