Candidates Inclinations to Compromise for the Sake of Winning –
Is That Not a Lie?
Authored By: William Robert Barber
One is armed only with one’s persuasion. Persuasion is the precursor of consensus; without consensus policy is but an academic exercise void of vigorous possibility. Persuasion is the artful combination of bandy; of rhetorical thrusts, slashes, panegyric salutes, all encompassed within the seemingly reasonable urging of one’s belief upon another; wherein, the goal is to induce the counter party to cheerfully accept a heretofore argumentative position. Persuasion is a constant; there is never an end to persuasion least an end to policy.
Implementers’ of policy must recognize that respective of the policy’s overtly meritorious sensibility, all policy is subject to the arbitrary whims of consensus; the positive consensus of any policy requires a necessary continuum of explaining, appealing, educating, and repeating same into perpetuity. In other words, as a necessary measure of the policy’s assurance in practice it is essential that the governing persuader must create, in common truth, the aura of positive popular consensus.
The precursor to the attainment of popular consensus is the constancy of persuasion. The implementers of policy are obligated to employ the art and science of persuasion in order to attain and maintain popular consensus. We are all, be it a political ideology, a religious belief, a social preference, or an economic strategy, to some degree, we are all advocates of something we believe in.
Inherent within the contesting of persuasion is compromise. Compromise is when one accepts partial victory rather than ignominious defeat; often, compromisers have no original idea, guiding ideology or have no belief they believe is worth fighting over. They describe themselves as moderates, middle of the roaders, non confrontational, conciliators; they consider themselves arbitrators of reason, persons of sensibility. I say they are the provocateurs of the less than good; willing to settle rather than to fight for a righteous belief; often they are the usurpers of civil regard, corrupters, and contrarian’s for the sake of the contrary.
History has documented the great compromises; arguably, compromise has rendered often enough, the immeasurable passive that in someway avoids deductive analysis altogether. I am of the opinion that elected representatives are obliged to admit in certain terms their declarative guiding philosophy of values; these values, if political should not be influenced by the fashion of the present or the utility of the moment to expedite some urgency but should stand, in the interest of the electorate, as their intrinsic raison d’être.
The process of contesting for an election to high office is an exhausting affair requiring the contender to maneuver and traverse though a gauntlet of unpredictable trials and tribulations. Surely, I do truly have an appreciation for the stress and pressure of the political candidate’s step-by-step, day-to-day, dawn to dusk ritual of affirming, denying, negating, creating, explaining, and advocating policy. Nevertheless, the candidate’s inclinations to exaggerate, misdirect, lie, propagandize, or other than declare their actual policy is very poor persuasion. How can they harvest consensus if their persuasion is something less than the truth? If focus groups incline a candidate to compromise for the sake of winning votes; is that not a lie? When a candidate is caught in an outright lie is that not an indicator of character and virtue?
Why do the media, the people, the candidate and their staff permit such behavior? The concept of a representative democracy is severely jeopardized if such conduct continues. It must stop!