So the conventions are finally over. It’s time to expect some rousing policy speeches and meaningful social media messages. Yeah, right. Since that doesn’t seem to be happening, let’s go back and look at what was actually set forth at the conventions.
Both parties formalized platforms, which I’m sure are available somewhere if anyone actually wants to read them. However, I suspect that political platforms are like the notorious missions statements that every business and educational institution develops. Even though a mission statement may be prominently posted where it is seen by everyone every day, it probably has very little impact compared to day-to-day goals, promises and negotiations. Which brings us to the candidates’ acceptance, or the “I’m gonna do” speeches.
The list of goodies each candidate promised party followers reads like divorced parents not so secret Santa bribes. The problem is, if you’re old enough to vote, you probably should have suspended faith in Mr. Claus by now. To the voters who registered specifically for this election, some of this sounds great. As more experienced voters, I’m afraid we’re come to doubt all promises. And for good reason. Candidates are never really held accountable. They get our wish lists and promise us the sky.
As someone who spent an entire career in teaching, I was subjected to accountability for classroom performance. As the standardized testing became the biggest accountability measure, elective courses and time for enrichment activities became the first casualties, so teachers were forced to develop supplemental extracurricular activities, which were rarely funded, forcing to teachers to scramble for the soft money sources of grants. Laying out a presidential to do list is a lot like writing a grant, and it should entail that level of specificity and accountability.
A grant application has several key elements. There is the narrative of what problems you are trying to solve, what specific actions you are going to take to solve the problems and an accompanying timeline, a evaluative measure of how you will know if you have succeeded, and last, but not least, a budget.
Both candidates seem to have the narrative down. The country is going to hell and needs to be saved and returned to former glory, or the country is good but could be better. I guess which narrative you accept depends on your personal beliefs and life experiences.
The specific steps and the timeline become the first stumbling block. Sorry, but nothing gets done “from day one” and it doesn’t happen instantaneously. Priorities need to be set and programs need to be phased in, IF they meet with legislative approval. We need specifics on how you’re going to create jobs, take care of the veterans, improve homeland security, and improve race relations. And let’s be honest, Make America Great Again, may fit on a bumper sticker, but it isn’t much of a plan. It’s just a slogan. I suppose there are some things that are easy to evaluate the success of. Either a wall gets built, or it doesn’t. But so many of the promises are nebulous, feel good ideas that mean myriad things to every individual member of the electorate.
One of the big questions with all of the promises, from free college to shipping out illegal immigrants living in the USA, is how are you going to pay for this? That’s the budget section of the grant. Grants always want to know if you have any matching funding for your project. (Mexico has made it pretty clear that they don’t intend to pay for a wall.) Even though you may be estimating, you have done your research and have specific numbers. (Hint, “We’re going to save zillions and zillions of dollars” doesn’t cut it in the specificity department.)
Am I nitpicking? You tell me. These are the hoops that a teacher jumps through to get a $500 grant to start an afterschool program or buy collateral classroom materials. Should we allow candidate to make vague, hyperbolic promises with no specifics of plan or budget when they ask us to grant them our vote? I don’t think so. But what do I know? I’m just a spinster with cats.