Politics Must Be More Than Soundbites, Populism

(Editor's Note: The following opinion column does not constitute an endorsement of any political party or candidate on the part of Newsmax.)

Politics used to be simple. It was like a game — someone won and someone lost.

Not long ago the differences between the two political sides were not that significant and the pendulum in the country did not swing dramatically from right to left.

While the two main parties had differences, when it came to governing the parties worked together to pass laws and establish effective policies that were the nation’s best interest. Both sides worked together.

Over the years things have changed. Especially, the game of politics has changed. Dare I say that those changes have not been for the better. Most of the changes have been in the messaging.

I have an older cousin. He is a man of tradition. Tradition informs every aspect of his life. He wears the same shoes he always wore — the same ties, the same shirts. He has worn the same style for the past 60 years. He does not like change.

Actually, he has always defined himself as a moderate. That was his philosophy in life; he is an Aristotelian. He believes in the golden mean that extremes were to be shunned at all costs.

He explains that extreme ideas are destructive and they are the antithesis of stable lifestyle. Extremism is simply wrong. The ideal behavior, the ideal philosophy of life was the golden mean. Neither a person nor a society should ever sway too far left or right.

This modality typified and reflected much of American life, especially its political life. Many people in the U.S. are centrist. Many voters in the US are centrists.

Many people may have voted Democrat in the that last election and Republican in the election before. The average U.S. voter leans slightly left and slightly right. As a result, in the past, the differences between one party and the other were not as dramatic as they are today.

One of the major changes in today’s politics in the U.S. is that it has devolved into a strange conglomeration of populism and fashion.

The fashion show is obvious.

The Washington Post refers to feeling good with Kamala Harris. This is the first time I can remember “the feel good effect” as a variable in elections and electability.

Populism on the other hand is front and center in both parties.

Populism is best defined as a message crafted to the masses — to the people. It is specifically not a message to the elite elements in society.

Populism is a very successful style of political communication. Populism distills very complicated ideas and makes them simple and easily digestible.

Today both parties are adroit at parsing and crafting messages that are so simplistic and so black and white.

Kamala Harris’ proposal to tackle the inflationary economy is the perfect example of populism. Again, even a Washington Post editorial blog was extremely disappointed and frustrated with Harris’ economic plan.

When the Washington Post is criticizing the Kamala Harris campaign that means they must see a glaring issue upon which they cannot remain silent. The Washington Post would never normally speak an unkind word about Harris because that would mean giving Trump an indirect compliment.

The Washington Post said that the plan offered no specifics and was filled with “populist gimmicks”. My point exactly!

Remember The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos. The Post is clearly entrenched in the left. There is no other way to interpret this editorial. It is a scathing attack on Harris and her plan.

Remember, an editorial is the point of view of the editorial board of the newspaper. The board discusses and together agrees on a point of view. Then one person crafts the editorial. The editorial is always unsigned.

The Washington Post has had their daggers out for Trump and would never want to intentionally or unintentionally help Trump. The Washington Post has obscured and deliberately avoided certain topics because covering them might accidently help Trump.

They have obscured news and realities that might make Biden and Harris look bad. That was especially the case regarding Biden’s cognition and health.

So again, if the Washington Post is saying this — there is a real deep issue at stake. In this case the Harris economic plan is a big goose egg.

Anyone who studied economics knowns that no single decision will fix the economy. Neither can the economy cannot be corrected in a single act.

Back to my cousin, there was a reason why he insisted that there were dangers in embracing the extremes. The reason is exactly the dangers of populism. When extremely difficult issues are reduced to simple solutions, real answers will not be found.

There is no easy way to say this. Politics has been converted into soundbites and populism. Unfortunately — I do not see any path back.