ATTACK EASIER THAN EXPLAINING

Which political ads are more effective, those that attack or those that explain?

Our 2012 presidential campaign provided the answer: attack, attack, attack.

Trouble is, explanation is more helpful to prospective voters; attack ads have but a grain of truth wrapped in a crust of spin and baked in an oven of hot air. But explanation can’t be accomplished in sound bite length or on pithy bumper stickers.

A recent Thomas Sowell column listed a number of issues he says flaunt the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution and the rights of a self-governing people. Among those he cited:

·        The president disregarding the 14^th Amendment and its provision of equal protection under law by waiving the Affordable Care Act for chosen unions and enterprises.

·        Laws passed too quickly to be read by lawmakers much less citizens.

·        Delegation of powers over vast sections of the executive branch to czars not subject to senate confirmation.

·        Military actions referred to the U.N. and the Arab League but not to the Congress.

·        Formation of a consumer agency by the Federal Reserve that can create its own money.

·        Waive or refuse enforcement of laws passed in the past despite an oath of faithfully execute them.

·        Have international treaties under the U.N. govern American citizens without senate approval.

Each of those bullets would take a white paper to explain and to refute, much less convince voters they are cause to support one candidate and reject the one espousing those positions. Take those items and dozens of similar situations and then convert them into short, cogent advertisements that could convert voters to a candidate’s arguments . . . well, there is probably not a political consultant alive who could do that.

So much easier to put into pictures and sound a candidate who is cruel to animals, a bully to his fellow prep schoolmates, wants to see grandmothers die rather than get treatment, halt social security, and is a capitalist pirate to boot. That’s easier than defending the expenditure of trillions in new debt and instituting restraints on liberty.

What is true for political advertising is pretty much true for debates, too. Squeezing in background necessary to make a point within two minutes or so is nearly as difficult. Speeches could be the medium for convincing voters, but in this day of short attention spans only zealots and faithful backers will listen, and absorb.

Candidates, particularly non-incumbents, and their consultants must find appealing and salient digests of their arguments to combat outright, fallacious attacks. In this covetous world, someone who can do that will make millions . . . and help millions of citizens to make wiser choices in the voting booths.