A political figure or leader makes a statement. Any statement, are we to believe it? Are we to accept it unquestionably? Are we to ignore it as blithering idiocrocy from a babbling bobble head? How do we tell the difference between meaningless media filler platitudes and well thought out structured plans?
It’s in a debate that a politician must demonstrate his ability. To articulate his platform, to defend its weakness, to inspire confidence in its merit. Or to fail.
To be unable to maintain a pretence of viability in the face of realistic and intelligent criticism is the fear of any political figure in a democratic society. Yet here in Canada we are seeing even that bastion of political greatness, the oration of inspiration, the hallmark of a truly great politician, fade, and be avoided. Replaced with market researched, carefully constructed poll inspired platitudes, or worse, simply vitreous attacks on opponents on an indefencable battlefield they are not invited to attend. The political TV ad.
It’s easy to trash your opponent when they are not there to defend themselves. How can you lose an argument where you are the only participant? It’s harmful, it’s an imagined superiority that leads to leadership by arrogance rather then reason.
Debate. Show up and defend your platform. If you can’t debate it, how can you implement it?
If you can’t support it, how can we?