The Political Chase

Campaign rhetoric vs. logic

Voters in a presidential race select a candidate for various reasons — substance, gut-feeling, likability — whatever. And no one would deny the extent campaign rhetoric influences those decisions either by reinforcing posits and policy or by obscuring facts and scrutiny. As Matthew Yglesias so accurately points out, it is important to evaluate the logic of candidates’ comments against their broad campaign rhetoric on the issues.

Matt picks up on a comment Hillary Clinton made in an interview when asked about the economic strategy she announced yesterday. Responding to questions about including Alan Greenspan as an economic advisor, Hillary said:

Not only that, but the Fed didn’t act while he was there. But he has a calming influence still to this day on Wall Street — don’t ask me why because I never understand what he’s saying — but nevertheless people respond to that Delphic oracle approach. I think it would be wise to include him. And recently he’s come out and vert [sic] smartly so that we have to deal with housing and maybe we need to have some kind of buyout mechanism for mortgages. So he’s moved on his understanding and depth of the problem — but you know you could pick three others. You just have to have some demonstrable involvement of presidential leadership.

Matt makes this very important point:

Basically, she’s the candidate of experience and policy substance, but when challenged on the particulars of her policies it’s all "math is hard!" don’t ask me how the magic works.

Matt deftly notes a major flaw in the very foundation of Hillary’s candidacy. I’m not arguing for or against Hillary here, but instead focusing on the importance of applying basic logic to any candidate’s basis for being president, their campaign rhetoric, and their subtle, less publicized statements.

Campaign rhetoric can be persuasive and easily obfuscate very important facts that do not normally make headlines at the New York Times or any other major news organization.