Dear Future Presient
The sentences in Presidential speeches seem to be framed in a very peculiar way.
Dear Future President,
I know that there’s a multitude of problems for our country that need fixing, and I’m not here to bash you for what you believe is the best course of action to take when resolving these problems. I’m here today to inform you about what needs to be said, and that is immediate and future effects. I may be getting in over my head, but hear me out. I’ve only recently started to get the whole big picture behind macroeconomics but my teacher has pointed out some very key things that I’ve noticed in almost every sentence about how the President wants to solve problems, they’re worded in a very specific way, such that it manipulates its own meaning to be perceived with utmost importance. I understand that framing your sentences this way is the surefire way to get support, but it is also the surefire way to get meticulous analysts to find any flaw in your message.
The problem with your message is that it leaves things out, and that’s definitely not a good thing. For example, the economy is a persistent problem with the country, depending on your political party your path of action to solve debt, unemployment and the like are going to vary, but one thing almost always gets left out: how does the new policy affect government budget, national debt, and interest rates both in the immediate and long term future. No such sentence has ever mentioned a deficit or surplus in the government’s budget, and increase or decrease on the national debt, or even a change in the current interest rates. However, it’s completely understandable why these things are left out, people despair at the sound of an increase in the national debt, people fear a government budget deficit, and nobody would ever want a negative impact on the current interest rates. Any mention of that and you’d be faced with a massive deficit of your own in the form of supporters. To add these elements into your messages would mean to lose support, but I believe that to get more support, not only do you have to address the problems, but minimizing the amount of opposition is also key to being a successful leader.
To be honest with the people, to cover as much of an issue as possible, to eliminate ambiguity is to gain favor. Leaving out points no matter how small they are create this uncomfortable feeling of the unknown in people’s minds. I’m only trying to say that you word your messages with more honesty, and more clarity. I’m not saying that how you word your sentences is completely wrong and that it should be changed, rather I’m trying to get you to understand that because the people fear the unknown, your words have to clearly shine a light on those anomalies to improve the message. Lack of these anomalies in an issue can certainly lower the amount of careful analytical views that have a vendetta on finding a flaw within in your speech. It may be a dangerous way to go about gaining support, but I believe it to be a logical approach to be honest with those who you govern over. With honesty comes trust, and if your supporters trust you, you are then more likely to succeed.