Politics vs. Policy - Why They Have Little to Do with Each Other

[MineralMan]

People often conflate policy with politics. They're not the same thing, and don't get discussed in the same way.

While related, the two things are very, very different. Unless a politician can get elected, he or she can do nothing. So politics are about winning votes, and relate only peripherally to policy. Politics are what we deal with during election years and campaigns. Policy issues sometimes come up, but bore most voters.

Policy is what elected officials implement. It's often not what they campaigned about. If it were, our elections would be very different. But, as voters, Americans appear to be more interested in appearance, speaking ability, and promises. We don't seem to care much about ideas, character and strategies to get things done. We have short attention spans, and discussions about policy proposals just aren't that interesting to most voters.

So, expecting politicians to spend a lot of time on policy matters is expecting too much. They're trying to get votes, not influence the course of events. That means that they focus on politics and the easy subjects that speak to the most voters. Politics is about broad, easy to understand promises. Politics is deliberately vague and unfocused. You can see that by looking at ratings for television programming that focuses on policies. Then, compare that to programming that focuses on the people running for office. Nobody watches discussions on policy. Well, a few, perhaps, but too few to influence an election.

Confusing politics with policy is a logical error. They're only remotely connected. We're in campaign season. Politicians are in campaign mode. You're going to hear precious little about policy matters most of the time. Policy issues don't bring in voters very well. That's too bad, but it's how things work. Get a group of people together and start talking about TPP and what it will do and what it's supposed to do. Watch people's heads as they nod off.

On the other hand, put the candidates on screen and get them arguing about more general stuff, and people will be interested. They can speak in glittering generalities, use the buzzwords that are current and promise a better life, a better job, and a better future and voters will pay rapt attention. The minute the candidates start talking about how those things will be accomplished, the audience will drift away to other entertainment.

Politics and Policy are are related, but don't expect policy to take center stage. It's not happening. Politicians understand this. They know what gets votes. That's what they'll be working for. If you want policy, you'll have to look elsewhere. Politicians don't want to talk about it. It's a losing conversation.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. I am the opposite of most voters, I guess. I get bored

with the one liner seductions and eye batting politicians wanting to seduce my vote and leave me without even a fake phone number so I can pretend it was all meaningless.


I want ot hear policy proposals. I want to know that before I put out that the politician wants more than a good time in the voting booth.

I am even more tired of the constant accusations between camps of devoted worshipers of a politicians whispers and come along smiles who think that if they just vote for the one perfect politician he or she will respect them every morning for the next four years.

[MineralMan]

3. I'm really not talking about DUers.

We're interested in policy. But we're also representative of a very small percentage of voters, frankly. Politicians don't care about DUers or other policy wonks very much. If they did, they'd be trying to communicate with us. They're not doing that.

Campaign managers know this and know who the bulk of voters are. Politicians who consistently win elections also understand this. They focus on large blocs of voters, not small groups that have little effect on actual elections.

That's not how it should work, but that's how it does work. Watch the polling on the most important issues for voters. Often, the top ranking issues are not the ones we're discussing here on DU. For example, you're not going to see TPP getting high percentages of concern in those polls. You're not going to see Israel/Palestine high on the list either, or the income gap between the rich and middle class. You will see jobs, education, health care, and other concepts on the list, though. All of those are great for blaming the other side and making vague promises.

So, politicians look at those issue ranking polls and focus on messages that address those issues in a general way. They promise to fix the problem, but don't really tell people how. If they can blame a problem on the other side, and they always can, that's much more effective than laying out policies that will address an issue. They'll give lip service to policies, but that's not their focus during campaigns. Policy wonks can dig out policy positions for the candidates, but they're not the focus of campaigns. You have to find policy position papers to get that stuff. It's too complicated for limited face time in the media, so that's not the focus.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. I have noticed that DU doesn't reflect reality all that well.

We are a large group of individuals that share a near obsessive interest in politics.

Most people outside of DU are only vaguely aware of who is running right now. They will start waking up next January, I hope.

[Nay]

2. I understand what you're saying, but I think conditions in the country can change (for

the worse, that is) so much that people begin to want policy talk rather than the baby-kissing stuff. I have no idea whether the US is bad enough off to make that switch yet, but it'll happen sooner or later.

OTOH, Bernie (for example) looks and sounds like your really smart grandfather, the one who gave you good advice growing up. If we're depending on personality and affability and short soundbites, I think he can do that. In fact, he has been. I think Hillary has NOT been doing too well in that area. But we'll just have to see.

[MineralMan]

4. I disagree. The worse things are, the more people want

promises that they'll get better.

Yes, Bernie looks like Grandpa or even Great-Grandpa to most people under 40. But that means old and out of touch to a majority of those people. I think you're rating his presentation too highly when you take the general population into consideration.

I like Senator Sanders. I like listening to him. He makes sense. I'm not the typical voter, though. Right now, you're not seeing much of Hillary Clinton. You will, though. She's on a low-key campaign right now, and will stay on it for some time to come. In some ways, it's a training phase, and she's gauging her impact on people in small groups.

Frankly, you'll see a different Hillary Clinton in this election than in 2008. She's hired smart campaign people. I think, though, that the voters are the same voters they always are, generally.

[Nay]

6. Again, I don't have a whole lot of faith in the American voter and, if you pressed me, I

would agree that Bernie will probably not beat Hillary. I'll be happy to see a few democratic socialist ideas thrown out there, just to gum up the slick campaign shit that I find so mind-numbing.

[MineralMan]

8. You watch. Hillary Clinton will agree with almost every issue

Senator Sanders brings up. This is not going to be a knock-down, drag-out primary campaign on the Democratic side. At least not in public when the candidates are involved. Here on DU, it will be, but that doesn't count for much, really.

[Nay]

15. I truly don't know if she can make her mouth do that. This election will either be the

most electrifying turnabout or it will be an utter snoozer with another Bush/Clinton ticket. I gotta say, being a witness to this is going to be interesting either way. It all depends on how pissed people are.

[MineralMan]

16. As I said, just watch.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Well this is novel, for the script

congrats I guess.

[MineralMan]

9. I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Sorry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. That is ok,

as I said, congrats.

(we have moved from FU Nader posts, to Can't Win, to now policy does not belong in elections).

In 2008 it did not reach this far. So this year it will be a highly entertaining silly season. Quite frankly, it is almost the only reason this place is worth reading anymore. For the entertainment.

Now back to policy...

[hfojvt]

11. spoken like a true journalist

people are bored by policy - so we have to talk about fake crap like clothes and made-up gaffes.

we don't care about ideas - so let's not provide any information to people

we have short attention spans - so let's make sure people have plenty to distract them


it's not OUR fault - it's the fault of the masses. We're just selling them the meth that they want.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. In another generation real journalists spent a lot of time on policy

but then a certain station in Miami discovered that the true click bait red meat was if it bleeds it leads.

Speaking of policy... that poverty article I am working on is policy. It even includes some of the stuff that are being done locally. Yeah, it is far less consuming to write about the car crash on the 163 the other day. wrong way driver. The visuals were painful to watch as well... and you write about it, give the five important details, and you are done. Perhaps the follow up at Court.

The real story was not the crash, but DUI and young people, and abuse of it... but none of that was touched.

Admittedly some pols would rather NOT speak policy on the trail, because they will lose the reporters. I wish I were kidding. But they also have a certain level of disdain for the hoi polloi that many in the press share with them.

So we return you to Cindy Loohan, or whatever is the current distraction.

Oh and if we have a train wreck, near the HQ for most, we will cover it 24\7 for days. If it happens in California, maybe 12 hours. Yup, we noticed those patterns too.

[Exilednight]

17. That's BS. I've been on the trail, and journalists beg for

Policy issues to be addressed. It's the politicians who answer circularly trying to avoid policy.

Politicians, especially during the primary, do not want to take a position in fear that they will have to defend it when policy questions arise.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. And I have seen journalist

ask the color of the sky when they get the chance. It is all about Access.

[Exilednight]

20. It's not. And the people who ask those questions are as much

Of a journalist as Rush Limbaugh is.

Those are the faces of TV, and the majority of those don't even write their own questions. They're usually fed to them from producers who have business or broadcasting degrees, but not journalism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. I can only speak from my own experience

and my own experience is that people are concerned about access, and that is it. This is the only thing the large media outlets are concerned with. Some of the independents will ask hard ball questions, but this does not happen enough. Major media, paper or TV, access baby.

[Exilednight]

23. Not true. Some "reporters" use that as a excuse

For not doing their job. They're the lazy ones.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. I speak from my own experience

I ask hard ball questions, but I can only speak of my own experience and my experience is that people are concerned primarily with access. PERIOD, end of discussion, that is it. Hell, I have had editors tell me that hard ball questions cost access so avoid them. Granted, these days I work on my own, and I will ask the hard ball questions. Trust me, I am not on the police chief Hanukah list.

But that is my experience. And we also do quite a bit of policy. Ergo, pols at times do avoid me. Hell I had one run away... and hubby had another run away. Literally.

Your experience, obviously, does not center around access. Mine does.

[Exilednight]

25. That's BS. Two things any journalist can count on

Is someone within a campaign to go on the record because everyone in politics wants to make a name for themselves. Someone always wants to prove they are on the inside.

The second is a politician who will always say too more than they intended.

Anyone who claims access as an excuse is lazy.

PERIOD. End of discussion, that is it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Well I did not say I use it as an excuse

just that many locally avoid the hard questions, and coincidentally they all work for large outlets.

Care to re-read the exchange once AGAIN? That is my experience. Perhaps it is not yours. Count yourself lucky. Perhaps you are lucky to work in a market that is large, (oh wait, that be mine) in a large urban area. (Oh wait, that is mine.)

Have an excellent day.

[RobertEarl]

13. Yours is the old way

Beside the fact that policy drives politics, which defeats your old way assertions, the times these days are more concerned with the policy and not the damn politicians who are media makeups, who are mere shells of corporate memes. Those days are ending and Bernie is leading.

[MineralMan]

14. Is it, now? We shall see soon enough.

[PowerToThePeople]

19. by design of the power structure

I will never accept your op as the norm. To do so accepts defeat.

Unrec.

[MineralMan]

21. You can UNREC all you like.

If you have been following election campaign science 1960, as I have, you know that what i wrote is true. Your UNREC is meaningless to me.

[woo me with science]

28. Amen! I call this manipulative propaganda tactic, "Third Way Blase," and we're seeing it often

as the abuses of power of our government and the deep corruption of our political parties become impossible to deny. The next best possible tactic for the corporate shills is to yawn at them, spread fake hopelessness, and try to normalize passive acceptance of the unconscionable.

Third Way blase.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5820898

A tactic in which negativity and false hopelessness are deliberate and malignant Third Way talking points.

Watch for that. It's particularly evident, because it *always* pops up regarding those issues, like money out of politics, that would actually target the problem of oligarchy, rather than pretending by offering band-aids.

We are seeing this tactic a LOT. Here is just a sample of threads in which I have called out "Third Way Blase":

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5251289

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5959721

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=848850

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1287672

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024977762#post47

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2567121

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025383825#post16

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025445751#post54

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4860596

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025349092#post365

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5384354

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5384354

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025528256#post64

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5249215

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024768967#post17

[sadoldgirl]

26. You may be correct, but this time there

is another factor in play, I think.
I have been going around my low middle class neighborhood
and passed out Bernie's platform. They like him and they
liked what he proposed; but .. but the answers I got were:

Oh well, the party wants Hillary, so we have to....
The party has already decided on Hillary, so no choice...
You know the party will ram Hillary down our throat ...
and so on.
Most of them were full of resignation as well as the
typical " so what difference does my vote make"

Very sad and to me an indication that there will
be low voter turn out.

[guillaumeb]

29. Politics is what politicians say to convince voters to vote for them.

Policy is what the billionaires want done when they purchase the politicians.

And yes, there is a big difference. The difference between perception and reality.

Or should I say the difference between "projection" and reality. We project our feelings and hopes onto a politician and hope the politician will fulfill our hopes after the election.