They Think You're Stupid by Herman Cain Read Free Book Online

labels, inflammatory rhetoric, and the people's money.
    Obviously, a party must win elections to have the opportunity to advocate an aggressive policy agenda. Winning elections only for the sake of victory, however, does not inspire the public to believe change in the status quo is possible. Today we see too many political campaigns fought with personal attacks and deception. Political parties and candidates interested in engaging the public in the political process must inspire the public by explaining the positive effects of aggressive policy change.
    An example of deceptive political campaigning is the attack in 2004 by Democratic candidates and Democratic elected officials across the country on the FairTax proposal. The Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Georgia released an advertisement in which she says of her Republican opponent, a cosponsor of the FairTax, "He wants a new 23 percent sales tax on nearly everything you buy--cars, groceries, even prescription drugs."
    This advertisement is deceptive because it says nothing about the fact that the 23 percent sales tax replaces all federal income taxes or that elimination of the current tax code will increase take-home pay for every employee. Nor does it address the Family Consumption Allowance that will provide monthly payments to offset the cost of necessities like food and prescription drugs, while effectively eliminating the tax burden on the poor, or the fact that the FairTax only applies to purchases of new goods and services. In addition, the candidate offers no plan of her own for reforming or replacing the current tax code.
    This political advertisement, like so many others that bombard our televisions every year, discourages the parties and candidates from addressing aggressive policy change. Instead, the object of this and similar advertisements is to "poison the well" by deceiving the public about the facts of the issues. The more you poison the well of political and public discourse, the more people join the ranks of the politically homeless.
    The third factor (along with differences in ideology and goals) contributing to the party divide is the public's political apathy . A majority of the public is disengaged from the political process, which provides no incentive for the parties and political candidates to change their tactics. Citizens must be proactive in educating themselves on the dynamics of the big issues. An active public, knowledgeable of the issues, would force our elected officials and party leaders to elevate their discourse past personal and sound bite attacks to a discussion on the merits of the issues and their proposed solutions.
    The disconnect between the public and the lawmakers causes lawmakers to use rhetoric that appeals to the lowest common denominator of understanding. Politicians feel that an uninformed public cannot understand the minutia of policy details. That is why we so often hear terms like "tax cuts for the rich" or former Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards's continuous complaint that "We live in two Americas." These statements have no basis in fact, but are used to play upon public apathy and ignorance by promoting jealously and economic class warfare.
    The second great divide in our country is the racial divide . The issue of race and debates surrounding equal rights, protection of rights, and guarantees for all citizens has been a part of our political dialogue since our Founding Fathers penned the Constitution. Today, the issue of race, which includes how various races are affected by policies and predicting how individuals of the various races will cast their votes, continues to permeate our political dialogue and policymaking decisions.
    When most political observers write or talk about the role Blacks play in the political arena, their immediate thought or response is likely, "Blacks vote for Democrats." That is a broad, perhaps shallow, but mostly true statement. The history of Black political