Vagueness in Politics Signals Shallowness and Danger

There is something that differentiates a truly great presidential contender from a shallow presidential pretender: Specificity versus vagueness. Among the current 2008 presidential candidates of both parties, whether officially announced or “exploring the possibility,” the old saying “some guys have it, and some guys don’t” is quite applicable as it applies to the specificity versus vagueness litmus test. For far too long, America’s voters have allowed candidates to woo them with generalities and clichés rather than demanding that candidates present detailed solutions for the problems facing our nation. An analysis of the differences between vagueness and specificity among candidates or undeclared but likely candidates follows:

Vagueness:
Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) believes that the world needs to eventually rid itself of nuclear weapons. Addressing the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University this week, Richardson told the audience that the world needs the U.S. to lead “a new Manhattan Project to stop the bomb- a comprehensive program to secure all nuclear weapons and all weapons-usable material, worldwide.” According to the AP article, Richardson’s goal for his “new Manhattan Project” would be to “secure nuclear materials in Russia and dangerous areas of the world so they can't get into terrorists' hands.” On the surface this sounds like a sensible idea, and it surely sounded plausible to his idealistic audience, but as with most pie in the sky statements from political candidates, Richardson’s plan to secure all nuclear weapons and nuclear material throughout the world is full of nobility but devoid of detail.

Not explained, for instance, is this perplexing dilemma: how would Richardson propose to demand that the Pakistani government, with the assistance of the IAEA, round up and secure all nuclear material located in that county? Remember, this is the same Pakistan that uniformly refuses to allow U.S. and NATO special forces units to cross the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and rout out the al Qaeda and Taliban elements that are flourishing unmolested in that mountainous region and have made nearly 20 attempts to assassinate Musharraf.

If Musharraf will not allow us to hunt Bin Laden in the area we believe he is located, it is naïve for Richardson to believe Musharraf would allow international inspectors to scour that same area in an attempt to detect nuclear material or weapons. The Pakistani government has proven too weak to confront the Taliban or al Qaeda with anything approaching consistency, and the two terrorist groups operate with relative impunity in their safe haven inside Pakistan. If nuclear material was detected in these terrorist camps and mountain hideouts, would the Pakistani government confront the terrorists, take the nuclear material or weapons by force, and then secure them for the IAEA to examine? The prospects for such an outcome are bleak indeed. It is far more likely that Pakistan would not risk international embarrassment or condemnation by exposure of the lax safeguards at its nuclear facilities. Pakistan is only one example. The former Soviet states are another matter entirely.

Richardson either knows that his “new Manhattan Project” sounds like a world changing, creative idea with no chance of becoming reality because other nations will never cooperate, or he is counting on admiring audiences to be too busy fawning over him to ask for details of his plan.

Richardson added to his credentials for vagueness in the question answer session after his speech. According to the AP article:

Richardson laid out the plans for his first days in the White House. The first day, he would get out of Iraq. The second, he would announce a plan to drastically cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil. On the third day, the issue would be global warming. . . .

Richardson apparently plans to withdraw from Iraq on day one of his presidency, with no details of a postwar plan for Iraq or for whether he would still withdraw from Iraq if the war had turned and the Iraqis were progressing toward securing their own country from the terrorists. Like most anti-war devotees, “end the war” slogans come easily and arouse emotion, but are intentionally vague about the repercussions of losing a war. On day 2 of his presidency, Richardson “would announce a plan” to cut our dependence on foreign oil. A suggestion to Richardson: You will never see the inside of the White House as anything but a guest if you run on this “I have a plan for oil dependence but I won’t tell you what it is until you elect me” platform. If Richardson actually has a specific plan for weaning America from foreign oil, let him present it publicly so it can be scrutinized.

It seems rather selfish for a presidential candidate to claim to hold the solution to our foreign oil problems in his hands but refuse to share it with the American people unless they vote for him. I suppose there is no provision in McCain-Feingold banning Richardson’s electoral extortion, and that is a pity. Of course, Richardson’s best defense would also be the most likely explanation for his vagueness: He has no such specific and viable plan to announce or he would have done so already to differentiate himself from his opponents. Perhaps Congress could subpoena him to testify about his miraculous oil plan. Then he could testify under oath whether he does or does not have a plan to announce on day 2 of his rapidly fading presidency.

Specificity:
On Monday, as part of a “talk with the candidates” format segment, potential candidate Newt Gingrich appeared on the Sean Hannity radio show. The former Speaker of the House took questions from callers and from Hannity, and was specific, as usual, in his responses. For example, Hannity asked Gingrich what, if anything, the U.S. and its allies could do to convince Iran to release the 15 sailors Iran illegally captured last week. Gingrich began by reminding the audience that Iran had committed an act of war by seizing the British vessel and crew in international waters, and had furthered the aggression by releasing video footage of the captured sailors, in violation of the Geneva Convention. Rather than give the vague and meaningless political diatribe about diplomacy and sanctions, none of which have encouraged Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program, Gingrich offered a very specific and simple plan for bringing the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad to their knees economically.

Newt Gingrich pointed out that Iran exports enormous amounts of crude oil, but only has one functioning oil refinery to produce gasoline for Iran’s civilian and military needs. Iran imports most of its gasoline for domestic consumption from foreign suppliers, which transport the gasoline to Iran through commercial shipping channels. Gingrich stated that the single Iranian refinery is located on the coast, within easy striking distance of our carrier groups, and its destruction would significantly impact Iran’s economy and military capability, due to loss of fuel for its tanks and planes. To tighten the economic noose, our carrier groups already in the region could blockade Iran’s ports, effectively preventing Iran from receiving any refined gasoline from foreign sources until the British crew and vessel are released.

The thinking behind this proposed course of action was specific and infused with a clear grasp of the need for a decisive, yet measured, response to Iran’s aggressive act of war against our primary ally. Most GOP presidential candidates talk tough about Iran; Fred Thompson in particular verbalizes what many conservatives instinctively feel about Iran and its behavior. Yet Thompson’s Law and Order “let’s kick their butts” type of appeal is long on bravado but short on specifics. Gingrich’s policy ideas are second to none and combine bellicosity and intellect into definable and specific courses of action.

All candidates have flaws, and Gingrich is no exception, as he has admitted publicly. However, it would be refreshing and ultimately beneficial for our nation if all candidates would, or could, talk specifically about their original ideas and policy positions like Gingrich. Generalities and vague statements like “we must reform Social Security” or “I want to keep America safe from terrorists” should never be tolerated by an American voter, or from our sound bite media. What do these statements mean? How far is a candidate willing to go to keep America safe from terrorists? Is that too far or not far enough? Decisions can only be made when there are specific criteria from which to choose.

If a candidate cannot be specific, we should assume he has no actual ideas or deeply held beliefs, as he is likely waiting to see what the polls indicate before taking a position on any issue of consequence. Vagueness in politics, like shallow waters, should require posted warning signs, lest the unsuspecting voter or swimmer eagerly dive in headlong and encounter danger.