The Science Of Campaigns
Deborah Venable
01/19/08
Testing
the waters. That’s how most campaigns
start out. A person or a group of
people put forth a notion that a particular person or even a particular set of values
or policies might have a chance of gaining political office in the next
election cycle. The question must be
asked, “Would the electorate vote for this?”
Defining
the “this” is extremely important at this point whether we are talking about
the likeability of the candidate or the effects of the values held or the
policies enacted. Believe it or not,
this is where most campaigns get in serious trouble almost from the get- go. If this step in the scientific method is
glossed over in the least, it will become painfully evident later in the
campaign. Bad science results when
theories are not honestly identified and tested.
Assuming
we have the i’s dotted and t’s crossed on accurately identifying where the
candidate stands with values and policies, we can go forward with further
testing for effects of power applied to said components. This is where the science gives way to the
hype nine times out of ten. As others
get in the act of “selling” the candidate, truth is oftentimes lost and our
“experiment” goes sour. All of this
selling is expensive stuff, so “support” must be measured in dollars. Dollars buy exposure, and exposure will make
or break the experiment.
In
a perfect world, the results of campaign tests would be written up by the
scientists themselves and the proof would be un-mistakenly evident in the
candidate’s actions on record. But a
different “breed” of scientist writes the results of these tests. Promoters determine both the projection of
and the acceptability of each candidate and set of values put forth in a
campaign. Promoters are not careful
enough to keep the science pure, therefore, campaigns are notoriously dirty,
confusion runs rampant, and truth is lost.
In
the laboratory of the campaign year, the “scientists” become much more
interested in putting on a show for private and public “grants” to support
their various “experiments” than publishing intelligent papers on their
findings. Hence the truth becomes more
and more convoluted. (Is it any wonder
that pollsters can get the results so wrong?)
If
the American public is so gullible that it will buy into the total nonsense of
man-made global warming and beg for the labyrinth architecture of
government-supplied health care, science has already been replaced by
philosophical bankruptcy. Lord knows
what we’ll end up with for a leader, as “science” is increasingly either tossed
aside as irrelevant or employed in the hands of useful idiots. Maybe the world is flat after all!
For
the true science of record vs. hype, please see the candidate with the most
conservative values and policies in my humble opinion – Duncan
Hunter.