(MintPress) – When Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann met Democratic challenger Jim Graves in a recent debate, he drew applause for challenging the incumbent on a platform that promotes complaints, rather than solutions.
It’s an issue that was specifically highlighted by Graves, yet it is not specific to this case — it’s everywhere. Campaign ads and debates are heavily focused on the problems in the country. When it comes to solutions, the answers can often be convoluted and are regularly overlooked.
Campaigning on outrage has become standard in U.S. politics. Being upset with the reality of the U.S. fiscal forecast is easy. The outrage comes naturally, and constituents can relate to a candidate who shares their fears and frustration. But does frustration lead to solutions? It’s a start, but it doesn’t fill the whole picture.
I’m mad as heck, but I might just take it some more …
There’s no doubt the economy is poor. The argument, instead, is how to get it back on the right track.
This time around, conservative political ads are focused on the fiscal responsibility issue. Democrats are the “big spenders,” and Republicans are looking out for the future by cutting back on spending.
Perhaps it’s because commercials only have so much time to make the case — or that debating where and why cuts should be made can also eat at the clock, but for the most part, the “how” question on both sides of the aisle is left blank.
Candidates, meanwhile, can get by simply acknowledging a problem rather than offering concrete solutions. This could be one reason why attack ads have become so prevalent. Journalist Rob Christensen of the News Observer made this argument this month, claiming that negative campaign ads have remained a staple in U.S. politics because they appeal to those who see there’s a problem.
“Negative ads work because it reinforces a deep-seated American skepticism about government and politicians,” Christensen wrote.
Sometimes that’s all it takes to win a vote. Solidarity behind others who share frustration is common.
It could also be why President Barack Obama launched himself to a landslide victory in 2008, campaigning on a promise of “change” and “hope.” Now, his rhetoric is being challenged, with many Americans claiming he didn’t deliver on that promise.
The war in Iraq has ended, and the war in Afghanistan is winding down, but the nation debt has hit $16 trillion — and foreign policy has included a system of secret drone attacks. Meanwhile, continued cuts to social programs have been seen and the unemployment rate has remained consistently around 8 percent.
His challenge now is proving that it’s part of a long-term strategy toward change. What might be more convincing, however, is uniting Americans who oppose Romney and his plan for budget reform — with many concerned that social programs will be on the chopping block for cuts. It’s a charge Romney has denied in debates, but skeptics are bracing for.
The budget plan released by his running mate included cuts to food stamp programs, housing programs and transportation. Education was also on the list of sectors to receive less funding.
Democrats typically want to preserve social programs while also cutting back on the debt. Republicans want to do the same, seemingly, but if taxes aren’t raised, cuts have to go somewhere.
And yet, when candidates admit that they’re going to raise taxes or cut social programs, they’re mocked and humiliated. Closing loopholes and axing regulations are the answers, according to many politicians. But is that enough to cut back on a $6 trillion debt?
A solution?
No matter what the solution, the one consistent factor is that cuts have to come — somewhere. A recent proposal put forth by the Congressional Progressive Caucus includes its own plan for cuts in the budget — cuts that would eliminate the deficit by 2021.
“The CPC budget eliminates the deficit in a way that does not devastate what Americans want preserved, specifically, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security,” the budget summary states. “Instead of eroding America’s hard-earned retirement plan and social safety net, our budget targets the true drivers of deficits in the next decade: The Bush Tax Cuts, the wars overseas, and the causes and effects of the recent recession.”
Of course, not everyone agrees with cutting the military budget, Romney included. Despite the fact that the wars are winding down, it’s a topic that’s off limits. Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s plan, for example, preserved military funding, favoring instead to cut social programs and alter government’s role in health care.
In the Commission of Presidential debate series, which included three separate presidential debates and one vice presidential debate, the issue of the economy was absolutely discussed, but the specifics of how each candidate planned to work his way out of the deficit wasn’t exactly delved into. At one point during the debate, Romney told viewers they could go to his website to check out his five-point plan to economic recovery.
That was a comment criticized by Obama, who claimed he had checked it out, but it didn’t add up.
The bottom line is, less than a week away from the election, candidates and voters have focused a great deal of attention on how many criticisms of government they share with the man/woman they’re choosing to vote for. It seems America will have to wait and see what the solutions will actually look like.