Political Speech; Rhetoric versus Substance

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong” H. L. Mencken


When I was growing up in Canada, I noticed that during the lead up to every national election, the leader of each political party promised to move the Canadian embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. For those who are strong pro-Israel advocates, the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is highly significant, and so we welcomed such promises. Within the Jewish community, many were impressed; others, expressing cynicism, ignored the promises. Why? Because once the election was over, the party that prevailed found some reason to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv, a position that was in accord with Arab sympathies against accepting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Somehow, this charade was repeated in election after election, as though no one would notice. This was my introduction to the nature and frequent dishonesty of political rhetoric.

We are entering the 2012 election season, and are about to be bombarded by displays of simple solutions to complex problems, pomposity, verbosity, hyperbole, irrational nonsense, promises that will never be kept, and occasionally a display of eloquence and reason.

Recently , philosopher and columnist Thomas Sowell discussed this phenomenon in a column titled politics versus reality. What he essentially states is that politics is about getting voters to believe certain things that may or may not be true. To do this politicians, media figures, and others, use clever words to advance an idea or agenda while ignoring alternative data (confirmation bias). Those predisposed to these ideas are easily convinced

One example he offers relates to the way in which politicians deal with the national debt. Should we solve this critical problem by reducing spending or by increasing taxes?. It is very tempting to demagogue this issue, to argue against "tax cuts for the rich". Never mind that historical evidence indicates that reducing taxes, by putting more money into the private sector where businesses are built and jobs are created, will in fact stimulate the economy and lead to greater employment. The proponents of higher taxes unfortunately do not care about evidence, about whether or not their proposals will solve the problem. The ideology of “spreading the wealth around” trumps consideration of what actually works.

Another example is that of health care. In Canada, where I grew up and received my medical training, financing of health care is a government function. While there are many advantages to this form of universal coverage, advantages that I myself have often pointed out, there are also many negatives.

The fact that people need to wait long periods to see primary care physicians, and even longer periods to see specialists, is not explored by supporters of government financing. And there is the fact that government in an attempt to save money may not permit newer drugs to be used, relying on less effective agents, or drugs with increased adverse effects. A classmate of mine who currently practices opthalmology in Toronto tells me that when he performs cataract surgery, he must use the lowest cost lens, even though the more expensive ones are far superior.


In other words, to save money, quality is often sacrificed. And so, on the one hand, everyone is covered; on the other hand, many Canadians are crossing the border to get timely health care.

Sowell points out that supporters of government sponsored universal health care often argue that life expectancy is less in the US, implying that this is the fault of our health care system, They simply ignore data that suggest that other factors such as obesity, poor diet, family dysfunction, and narcotic abuse, may be partly responsible. Thus clever rhetoric again trumps accurate analysis.

Those on the other side, opponents of government as insurer, ignore the problem of dealing with those who lack access to health care by virtue of the unavailability of affordable insurance. They insist that health care is a privilege, not a right due to all of our citizens.

So we have a standoff in which politicians and journalists who support or oppose government financing of health care fail to present a nuanced picture. Both sides present studies that support their point of view, ignoring alternative realities.

Another example is that of "shovel-ready projects" advanced by President Obama as a solution to economic stasis and unemployment. In this scenario, the administration’s spokespersons would have you believe that there are construction projects where the shovels would immediately go to work as soon as the stimulus money was available. Guess what? It didn't happen. Now we don’t have the construction projects, but we are saddled with the debt resulting from the stimulus

We are facing high unemployment despite the promises of "stimulus" spending. Further, government hiring means transferring funds from the private to the government sector, resulting in job loss in the private sector. This is why government job creation does not lead to lower unemployment. However, the talking heads and politicians talk about government coming to the rescue by creating jobs. This is simply rhetoric that ignores the realities.

A final example; in San Francisco and Berkeley we have rent control. According to the politicians who profit off such beliefs, “Rent control rescues helpless tenants from the high rents charged by greedy landlords”

But what is the reality? We have housing shortages, as developers are discouraged from developing. We have reduced maintenance and amenities as landlords are forced to deal with rent increases that lag behind the increased costs of maintaining housing. Once again, political figures profit on the perception that lack of adequate maintenance must be the fault of “greedy landlords”, rather than an inevitable consequence of freezing housing rents.

And price controls in general, often advocated by political and media figures, have unintended negative consequences, Imagine price controls on health care services, where costs are continually rising, but the health care providers are forced to absorb the increased costs. How many will stay in business? How many physicians have taken early retirement, or refuse to accept Medicaid patients?. Is this why it is getting harder to find a primary care physician? Is this why price controls generally lead to shortages?

As we approach the upcoming elections, we have a responsibility as voters to carefully scrutinize political talking points. This is not a progressive or liberal issue. It is an equal opportunity problem, applicable to conservatives also.

The lessons? First, beware of simple solutions to complex problems. Secondly, try to anticipate unintended consequences. And finally, seek out nuanced arguments that present data, not language designed to simply stir the juices.



Please bookmark!