The Washington Post’s “Another View” guest editorial (published June 11 in the Press Herald) hits a number of very important and valid points. But the headline (“Clinton should battle Trump with sound ideas”) and inherent/implied basis of the piece are both flawed.

The point being (and this is an important point) that Hillary Clinton can ill afford to ignore simplistic sound bites to counter those of Donald Trump, who, after all, is the master of all things simplistic. The reason for this is that the majority of voters, whom the Post counsels Clinton to trust, are in no way likely or inclined to expend the requisite effort to read and understand any proposals, “pragmatic” or otherwise.

There’s insufficient space available here to delve into that. Suffice it to say that politicians of all stripes have made a very good living for a very long time by banking (figuratively and literally) on the fact that the American voter is too lazy to invest the time to become well-informed on issues and proposals, let alone the mechanics by which legislation is drafted and becomes law (contrary to what may have been taught and learned in high school history or civics classes).

Rick Kelley

Windham

Copy the Story Link