‘AND AS MY OPPONENT WAS BABBLING . . .’

An ad for a brokerage in The Wall Street Journal featured this message: “Never mistake information for insight.”

Another way of putting that would be: Don’t confuse knowledge and wisdom.

Candidates for public office, regardless of party, make that mistake in almost every speech and campaign pitch, not to mention causing confusion.

Gullible voters, alas, are prone to fall for the scam.

One of the most successful practitioners was – is – William Jefferson Clinton, the man from Hope. His blarney was golden. [Has anyone noticed that nearly all of our recent presidents seem to have Irish ancestors? Someone on the Emerald Isle has a hereditary bent for tracing family trees back to nearly St. Paddy.] His encyclopedic mind could lay out strings of facts and factoids about acknowledged problems that would intrigue listeners, especially those writing for the news media. That ability made him the successful politician he was. Mrs. C is fated to use the same technique in her coming campaign to gain the same office Bill held for two terms. Remember, when he ran the first time, a campaign theme – though not official – was get two for one. She was purported to be the smartest woman on earth. She did parlay that reputation to garner a senate seat in a state in which she had not previously resided and as secretary of state.

John McCain was typical in his use of the same methods. In fact, the proper nouns in the preceding sentence could be left blank and then filled in with nearly any political name and be accurate.

Political party doesn’t matter.

Speeches laden with problem upon problem are so common that few are analyzed for content, especially in the popular press. Rather, campaigns are covered as races with progress reported in polling results and in changes therein.

Politicians and their handlers shun offering specific solutions, although opponents repeatedly point out that lack, because the “devil is in the details.” One can be attacked for propounding detailed solutions. Details can be nitpicked to good effect; no need to counter with one’s own details. The same danger lurks.

Border sealing is a good example in the debate on immigration legislation, which was campaign fodder for quite a few candidates. It is quite easy to agree the U.S.-Mexico border is long and porous. But sealing it, or whether it is tight enough, can be argued only with some fairly specific proposals. All of which can be retorted in myriad ways. Without getting into details, Mitt Romney suggested a partial solution to illegal immigration through self-deportation by aliens who might find pathways to citizenship too onerous. That got the candidate into heaps of trouble.

Serious politicians, whether in or running for office, should have enough integrity to offer their honest and detailed proposals for handling the problems and troubles that beset the jurisdiction they seek to help run, whether that is the country or merely a township. Such a course, admittedly, is much easier for the town selectman. But, voters should insist that opponents are as equally precise in their criticism. Voters are entitled to more than such attacks as in that old comedic line about the southern pol excoriating his opponent as “a known, practicing heterosexual.”

Modern politics being what they are, any move toward enlightened campaigning or helpful congressional debate may be but idealistic hoping. Speaking of idealism, our Founders were idealistic in their formulations for workable self-government. Despite today’s shortcomings, their genius survives.