Poverty, healthcare, education, housing, international affairs. All of these topics are being batted around in presidential campaign ads. And if the past is any indication, they will consume more and more radio and television time until the election in November.
But ask yourself this: what have you actually learned about what the candidates are going to do about these issues? The answer: precious little.
So far this campaign season we’ve been treated to a plethora of ads telling what the other guy is doing wrong. We’re hearing story after story about why the other guy can’t do the job, but almost nothing about what the winner, whoever he is, will actually do to solve the problems.
We’re also hearing a lot about how the candidates are trying to attract people who are dissatisfied with a particular party message. Republicans are wondering what they can do to attract minorities. Democrats are wondering what they can do to attract the rich.
But if your message and central focus doesn’t include minorities or the rich, why do you want to attract them? The answer: because none of the candidates want to actually serve as president. They want the big airplane, the fancy car and the chance to occupy the Oval Office. They want to be surrounded by minions. But service? Absolutely not.
That’s why there is so much negative advertising. None of the candidates want to tell us what they will actually do, because they are afraid of alienating this group or that group. So one candidate says he is going to end Obamacare, but he doesn’t tell us exactly how he going to do it, since the other party is in charge of half of the Congress. The other candidate says he is going to help the middle class, but he doesn’t tell us exactly how he’s going to do it, since the other party is in charge of half of the Congress.
Of course, the media could help solve this problem by only running issue-oriented ads. But wait, then they would lose too much money…at the expense of helping the country.
And we sure can’t have that, can we.