Dumbing down or just plain dumb?

No offense to Joe Sixpack, Joe the Plumber and Joe Schmo, but why do republicans pander only to them? I'm sure there are a lot of other people across the nation who would like to be pandered to. And that takes us to my point. If John McCain and Sarah Palin didn't dumb down so much, they could, I think, connect to more people. They could even connect to more regular Joes, since a lot of them are actually intelligent. The strategy is flawed. It's all dumbing down and no refuting up, doggone it.

Not that I want to give the GOP's a hand or anything, it's just that I can't help notice the compromised quality of their approach. What's wrong with a little technical back up once in awhile, even if it goes over a few heads. Don't people earn some respect when they talk about things beyond our grasp? I think Stephen Hawking is a genius, I can't explain exactly why, as there is nothing he says that I understand, but I am absolutely convinced that the guy is really, really smart.

Complexity can be a critical part of an argument. If nothing else, it portrays the big issues––like our economy or the tribal entanglement in Afghanistan and Pakistan––more honestly. The truth is that common sense alone won't solve these problems.

I'm not suggesting that a candidate forgo any ranting and rousing for the boredom of a 6th grade social studies class; neither am I saying that conclusions shouldn't be made simple. I merely believe that the importance and complexity of the subject, and the depth of treatment we choose to give it, should be dictated by an appropriate amount of detail. Without it, no one's going to be completely swayed of anything––not really. This is basic rhetoric.

What if we hold back the viewpoints and partisan punch lines for a few moments and we start out with a brief history of how we got into this mess. I know this would be hard for politicians, who all seem to have a secret desire to be Reverend Jesse Jackson as soon as they get behind the podium, but when emotions are running high, as they are these days, it may be the wisest strategy. Look: reminding an audience of an opposing argument at the outset, may so confirm the audience in their prejudices that they would shut down and not lend an ear to our view. Under those circumstances, why not take them along a line of logic that gradually opens to our refutation. The ultimate objective should be enlightenment, as opposed to what we have here––a response that can be summed up in one word" "Rah!"

Here, a candidate relies on only the intensity of his or her beliefs. So when a speech lacks content, we shouldn't be surprised if a mob starts spewing  hatred and racism. Yes, candidates have a responsibility. They should control things by trying to change people's minds, as well as their hearts. It could get more votes too.

I hate all this dumbing down. As the candidates dumb down, I have this fear that maybe––is it possible?––he and she is only as smart as me? And does that scare the crap out of me? You betcha.