Helpful Hints For Upcoming Elections
Roy Maynard
Debate season is upon us.
I don't just mean high school debate - though that begins in our region with a tournament for novices at Robert E. Lee High School on Sept. 22.
I also mean the debates leading up to the jail bond election in November, the party primary elections in March, and eventually the municipal races in May.
As I've been preparing materials for class at Good Shepherd School, where I coach debate, I realize more and more that many candidates could do with a few pointers.
Here are some principles that apply to both high school debate and to political discourse in the real world.
First, plans count. In fact, plans are the only things that count. Ideas are nice, and philosophies can be interesting, but solid, concrete plans are what we need to discuss.
More than once, I've come away from candidate forums feeling as if I was stuck in that old joke:
"What did the preacher talk about today?"
"Sin."
"What about sin?"
"He's against it."
On the surface, nearly all people agree: government should spend responsibly, hard work should be rewarded, education is good, families are great and we should protect the vulnerable.
People don't actually agree, of course. Especially politicians. And the real disagreement is seen in their plans.
For example, my wife's plan for saving money is to not spend it. My plan for saving money (and it's a much better plan, might I say) is to buy that new grill when it's on sale. It has cast iron grates! And it's shiny!
The difference between our plans is the difference that counts.
It's the same in high school policy debate. There's a broad resolution each year (this year it's about public health assistance for Africa), but within that resolution, each team develops its own plan. The plan is what the debate is about.
Second, results matter.
In policy debate, the term is "solvency." Some textbooks use the term "workability." But the principle is the same: does the plan achieve its goals?
In politics and governance, results matter even more.
Take welfare. Since the FDR administration, we've seen dozens of welfare plans at the federal level. If the goal of a welfare program is to reduce poverty, we know that most have been failures. President Bill Clinton acknowledged this when he signed welfare reform legislation in 1996.
Those who oppose such reforms, even now, can't argue results - they lose that one. So they argue against the goal, attempting to change it to something along the lines of "the point of welfare is to make us, the givers, better persons."
Finally, nothing happens in a vacuum. Every plan has advantages and disadvantages.
In high school policy debate, these are legitimate, important issues to argue. It's the same in the real world.
Again, take welfare. Most observers now acknowledge that a "culture of poverty" was engendered and enabled by indiscriminate welfare programs. The results included more single mothers, more children raised in poverty, more people out of work.
Those were clear disadvantages to the plan.
On the other hand, the welfare reform plan had distinct advantages. In addition to having solvency (nationally, welfare rolls dropped by 57 percent, as of 2005), the plan had fiscal benefits as more and more former welfare recipients became taxpayers.
As the elections near, real debates will only occur when real policies are discussed - with plans presented, results discussed, and consequences explored.
I'll be watching. I have a grade book, and I'm not afraid to use it.
Early Returns is the political observations column of staff writer Roy Maynard, who can be reached at 903-596-6291 or at roymaynardtmt@gmail.com.
I don't just mean high school debate - though that begins in our region with a tournament for novices at Robert E. Lee High School on Sept. 22.
I also mean the debates leading up to the jail bond election in November, the party primary elections in March, and eventually the municipal races in May.
As I've been preparing materials for class at Good Shepherd School, where I coach debate, I realize more and more that many candidates could do with a few pointers.
Here are some principles that apply to both high school debate and to political discourse in the real world.
First, plans count. In fact, plans are the only things that count. Ideas are nice, and philosophies can be interesting, but solid, concrete plans are what we need to discuss.
More than once, I've come away from candidate forums feeling as if I was stuck in that old joke:
"What did the preacher talk about today?"
"Sin."
"What about sin?"
"He's against it."
On the surface, nearly all people agree: government should spend responsibly, hard work should be rewarded, education is good, families are great and we should protect the vulnerable.
People don't actually agree, of course. Especially politicians. And the real disagreement is seen in their plans.
For example, my wife's plan for saving money is to not spend it. My plan for saving money (and it's a much better plan, might I say) is to buy that new grill when it's on sale. It has cast iron grates! And it's shiny!
The difference between our plans is the difference that counts.
It's the same in high school policy debate. There's a broad resolution each year (this year it's about public health assistance for Africa), but within that resolution, each team develops its own plan. The plan is what the debate is about.
Second, results matter.
In policy debate, the term is "solvency." Some textbooks use the term "workability." But the principle is the same: does the plan achieve its goals?
In politics and governance, results matter even more.
Take welfare. Since the FDR administration, we've seen dozens of welfare plans at the federal level. If the goal of a welfare program is to reduce poverty, we know that most have been failures. President Bill Clinton acknowledged this when he signed welfare reform legislation in 1996.
Those who oppose such reforms, even now, can't argue results - they lose that one. So they argue against the goal, attempting to change it to something along the lines of "the point of welfare is to make us, the givers, better persons."
Finally, nothing happens in a vacuum. Every plan has advantages and disadvantages.
In high school policy debate, these are legitimate, important issues to argue. It's the same in the real world.
Again, take welfare. Most observers now acknowledge that a "culture of poverty" was engendered and enabled by indiscriminate welfare programs. The results included more single mothers, more children raised in poverty, more people out of work.
Those were clear disadvantages to the plan.
On the other hand, the welfare reform plan had distinct advantages. In addition to having solvency (nationally, welfare rolls dropped by 57 percent, as of 2005), the plan had fiscal benefits as more and more former welfare recipients became taxpayers.
As the elections near, real debates will only occur when real policies are discussed - with plans presented, results discussed, and consequences explored.
I'll be watching. I have a grade book, and I'm not afraid to use it.
Early Returns is the political observations column of staff writer Roy Maynard, who can be reached at 903-596-6291 or at roymaynardtmt@gmail.com.
FAQ
Search Forums
Log in
Register
