Political Agreement Matrix

To break the hold of the US vs. Them mentality in politics, we’ve got to be able to spot the tactics used in political speech. Adjectives used in political speech are rarely used to offer insight into an issue, the intent usually being to promote an opinion.

It’s just simple marketing. Attach positive words with what you are promoting and repeat as often as possible. With enough positive or negative marketing , you’ll have others using similar adjectives to describe the products. The better the put-down, the more likely it will become a headline. Headlines are repeated without being read, and over time the opinion can turn into reality.

Political opinions are a mixture of marketing issues and parties at the same time.

Politicians X plan is intelligent, and its going to work. (agree with positive adjective – same team)

Politicians X plan is shockingly accurate, and its going to work. (agree with negative adjective – opposing team)

Politicians X plan is well-intentioned, and its not going to work. (disagree with positive adjective- same team)

Politicians X plan is extremist, and its not going to work. (disagree with negative adjective – opposing team)

None of the above statements are intended to sway the listener with supporting arguments or facts. The person isn’t trying to persuade with reason, but instead with simple positive and negative associations.

Another advantage to paying attention to the marketing adjectives is most people don’t come right out and announce their political affiliation, but the adjectives used offer insight into the political positions held by the speaker in relation to the subject.

National Debt Increase by President

The Rachel Maddow Show has posted this debt graph to point out Republican Presidents have increased the national debt more than Democratic Presidents.

On the same page is a video, Pin the Debt on the Donkey!, in which contestants guess which presidents saddle the US with the most debt, the answer being “Republicans.” Rachel Maddow questions why Republicans are considered the “natural party of fiscal responsibility” when they don’t have a history of fiscal responsibility.

The answer is the Republican Party isn’t the natural party of fiscal responsibility, and neither is the Democratic Party.

Its a cruel trick to have you believing that one party would do a better job at handling the nation’s budget. Going by this graph, you could assume the current Democratic President is adding less to the debt than the Republican Presidents. This is not the case. In the first year of President Obama’s administration, 1.5 trillion has been added to the national debt. 1.5 trillion is half of the 3 trillion added under President Bush’s 2nd term. 1.5 trillion is equal to the amount of debt added during both President Clinton’s terms in office.

Its a good example of the damage done in the us-vs.-them of politics, because neither party has shown it has any natural fiscal responsibility. In terms of fiscal responsibility, the us vs. them mentality is simply enabling both parties to be fiscally reckless.

With both parties driving the country towards the cliff of bankruptcy, it’s a poor selling point to say our party will get you there the safest and fastest way possible.