ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
A platform in this case is any short statement that is usually nonsense and is only there to reel people in. No real information or anything.
Look up the word
ochlocracy. The difference between ochlocracy and democracy is pretty straightforward. In a democracy, the power is held by the people, but the people have power also over themselves. They have the education and the social discipline and organization to pursue their actual goals.
For a case example, imagine imagine one local politician, Mr. Peterson, who says, "I have heard some expressions of concern about my colleague, Mr. Brown, regarding an alleged love-affair. Although I am running against Mr. Brown, my campaign committee has investigated this matter. The woman he was photographed kissing was his 61 year old aunt, who is presently bed-ridden with breast-cancer, and for the record, I think it's inappropriate for there to be so much public discussion about Mr. Brown's private business. Moving on to something more serious, I would like to discuss my concerns over Mr. Brown's decisions on a recent redistricting bill that he supported. Several residents in the affected areas have expressed a great deal of frustration..."
That's democracy. It skirts around the impulses and emotional gut-reactions of the people, and the people--and their politicians--discuss real-world issues from a sober perspective. What makes democracy different from ochlocracy is that the political leader structures the discussion so that the people can stay on-task and address their actual substantive concerns.
An example of ochlocracy would be something like this:
Mr. Jones comes up, and he says, "I and my fellow citizens are angry! We reject Mr. Brown's iniquity and sin!" and the mob behind him goes, "Yeah! Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb!" and Mr. Jones waves his hands to encourage the mob mentality for a moment before speaking again, and he says, "Mark my words! I will be in there to FIGHT AGAINST this kind of CORRUPTION!"
Basically, I think you are correct if you are suggesting that these platforms tend more toward ochlocaracy and sound-byte language. Unfortunately, that is the state of our politics right now. The election of our government tends to be a great big poo-flinging contest and media circus, and it's hard to tell whether a platform statement actually reflects what a politician actually does or not. Often enough, they can be outright lies.
The thing is, to say it's bad to use them is sort of like taking a knife with you to a gunfight. You can make all the moral pretensions you want to, but you'll still be a dead man. I will say that you are correct, though, if you find a politician dubious if that person relies too heavily on a simplistic platform and never really discusses his or her ideas with any depth. The platform is necessary for a politician in this era of sound-byte politics, but I think it's a pretty good bet that, if there is nothing else to a politician, then that person probably didn't even have a hand in authoring it, much less making decisions based on it.
At their best, platform statements can serve as a very high-level statement of purpose that puts complex issues into a perspective that regular citizens can understand them, such as saying, "Let's make our education spending more efficient, so the kids are getting the full benefit of what we spend on their education." Well, when you discuss that in detail, you might say, "Some schools in northern Germany successfully applied a similar process in a situation that I believe is comparable. It uses..." and then explain the approach taken with a little more depth. The platform statement, in this case, is your "foot-in-the-door" to start discussing these things with more depth.
17 Dec 2014, 1:26 am
