What Battle?

While reading part of a speech recently I picked up on a pattern of behavior that seems shallow, but it’s probably effective in some circles.

The speaker referred to a group of organizations and said their costs had steadily increased over the years (true, no doubt), and the result is that what they offer is out of reach for many who deserve those services. Every description was carefully used to convey these organizations as “bad guys” or the enemy with an unfair agenda.

Naturally, the speaker had the solution for this “problem”, and if one followed the emotion of the moment, then it seemed only right that the remedy be carried out immediately.

Notice I said the “emotion” of the moment, not the logic. If one reasoned through the issue, then there were likely several reasons for the increase in costs, and not all were on the part of the organizations. Yet, the design of the speech was to stir emotional angst against the greedy organizations who stand in the way of those in need, and the speaker made himself the one to provide the solution.

This is politics at it’s most common, both in fact and in style. For a battle to be won, there must first be a battle, even if it has to be invented. Where have you heard such tactics used?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s