How to Ask a Politician a Question Without Acting Like a Jerk
Please click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNLRFkvnrYk for a You Tube video of me asking John Stephen and Grover Norquist a big time question about the national debt. Then contrast this with the video that made the NH INSIDER rounds last week.
I asked the question at a May event in Manchester for Mr. Stephen’ campaign. The public was invited, so I showed up. I spoke cordially with Mr. Stephen both before and after the event. I didn’t follow him to his car yelling and acting menacingly.
Long time readers know that I’ve written many columns rabidly critical of Mr. Norquist’ role in the failed economic policies of the Bush administration. Jeb Bradley voted for them while he was in office, and Mr. Stephen thinks they are still the way to go.
Obviously I would have loved to ask Mr. Norquist five or six follow up questions. But it was neither the time nor place.
In my next column I’ll analyze Mr. Norquist’ weak answer to my question. That’s the civilized way to use You Tube.
Chaz Proulx
35 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (35)
I have no idea who these people are, but the guy who answered your question, well, his answer was simply terrible. Terrible!
I am not saying he does not have a right answer, or that he's an idiot or a dope or anything of that nature. But I'd have to say that his reply was pretty stinkin' weak.
Did he say, "You have to grow the economy"? Why, yes he did, repeatedly. And while that might be part of the answer, it surely was not the totality of the answer.
As for you asking a question, well, I must say that I thought you were the bald guy who was not moving his lips; I thought you might be a ventriloquist. But when the camera operator finally found you, well, it was clear that you are a decent chap.
(BTW: I see you are too busy being civil in public to finish your final arguments re: Mr. Leach. But I jest. You can be done, as I said, if you wish.)
Be well, and keep being civil (but you should have followed that guy out into the parking lot and given him a wedgie).
Peace and mirth,
Bill Gnade
Two problems here. First, you think the question you asked was a big time question, and at this point the national debt and even the trade deficit (as critical as they are) are not the biggest questions. The big question is, why are we paying four dollars a gallon for gas when there really isn't the bleak supply issue or the extreme demand issue the media is talking about.
Second, why be civil when faced with the theft of your country? I think it is time to be anything but civil. Incivility would be much more appropriate.
I appreciate your efforts anyway. I know your opinions are heartfelt and I know how hard you work.
Bill the rest of that statement was you must grow the economy faster then you grow the government. That's true and unfortunately is the problem we see today, the government is growing faster then the economy around it. Pointing that out isn't something I see as a bad answer in the least.
Heck, I'd like to see that same question leveled at Lynch with his spending and then bonding the debt onto future generations here in NH.
Bill, I practice that silence is consent. When one chooses not to finish an argument, their silence is silent acquiescence.
Let's talk. Give me a ring at 231-7562
during the daytime. Eleven through four is best. If I miss your call, leave a number and I'll call you.
Cz
Hi, thanks for the kind words. Hope your campaign is going well.
As I said I'll take up the substance of Grover Norquist's answer an another column.
Somethimes silence just means a person is busy. That's my situation. Ten balls in the air all the time
Thanks for the comment. Of course, you are right. But I only think you are partly right.
Expanding the economy is fine, if, of course, expanding the economy is at all the purview of Congress or the President. I doubt that it is. But we can certainly "shrink" the economy and "shrink" government and still reduce debt. The problem is, no one is really into shrinkage.
But if you insist that it is meaningful to say that we must "grow the economy faster than [we] grow the government", I would say that a government that increases taxes, cuts spending and streamlines its procedures in order to pay down the national debt is not necessarily growing "faster." In other words, even a progressive government need not grow faster than the economy.
The only time a government might grow faster than the economy is if its tax codes and spending plans amount to something punitive, making profitability in the private wealth-engine not only undesirable, but unrealistic.
But for anyone to propose as a solution to America's astronomical national debt that we must "grow our economy faster than we grow our government," well, that's just plain juvenile, or so I think. Things are far more complicated than that.
Moreover, it would be interesting to just hear one time someone posit the bold idea that debt is not intrinsically bad. Nor is debt de facto detrimental to one's credit, one's budget, or even one's nation. Debt often generates more wealth; we know this time and time again.
What is detrimental is when one's debt exceeds one's assets, or one's ability to repay that debt. This admittedly is Econ 101, but I think it's a point worth making: If America does not continue to innovate and create and augment its manufacturing infrastructure; if it does not continue to expand -- not a mere service economy but one rooted in actual necessity and the distribution of essential goods and resources -- then America is doomed. If all our assets lose their real value to any world economy, what can we do?
For fun, I would point out that exorbitant debt gives the debtor an enormous amount of power and influence. It's a weird thing, I know, but it is hard for some folks to let go of power, even if it is built on something like a negation. Debt is a powerful psychological tool, at the very least, maintaining levels of anxiety and fear and much insecurity, all resulting in something an awful lot like co-dependency.
Cut government spending, reduce government waste, simplify the tax code, fight for a healthy and free private sector, enable people to govern themselves by themselves, reduce entitlements for a saner strategy of personal responsibility and involvement, and America could knock its debts down significantly. And one more thing: America has got to stop feeling ashamed of and guilty for not only its wealth, but wealth in general. Two undercurrent assumptions in this country, utterly unjust, are that wealth is always associated with something evil, some great vice; and that the poor are poor merely because someone else is rich. These two ideas need to be eradicated, born, as they are, of envy. They are not true, and therefore can only do us all great harm.
Peace,
BG
I know you are busy. So am I. Know that I was only jesting, and secretly hoping that Suzanne was right.
All in good fun!
BG
I agree with you about silence often being a sign of concession. But we both know that Chaz does not give up a fight all THAT easily. I mean, isn't he actually the Black Knight? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4])
Bliss!
Gnade
Alas, I blew it. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
(Excuse the cartoonish gore, but I couldn't resist.)
BG
How very funny and timely you should post that link! Mønti Pythøn ik den Høli Gräilen was our family movie last night! My husband and I took a chance on our 8 year old either loving it or hating it. Coincidentally, he loved it! (secretly thanking God!)
And yes, I am willing to grant Chaz an exception as he has shown he is one.
That's no way to ask a question either. How can you Chaz-tize one for asking an impotent question not worthy of a satisfactory answer on the one hand and you yourself address this instance with an accusatory, aggressive question. Certainly you don't expect a satisfactory answer having asked a question in this tone and format?
I like your question and the way you asked it. I also think Norquist's answer is essentially correct, and I look forward to debating that in a future thread.
Suzanne,
Chaz-tize?!!?! Great word, I love it!
Matt
Neil ( Rowland )
As I wrote above, my next step here will be to look at Mr. Norquist answer in depth.
I'm just getting started.
If you look at the loud mouth in the CSP video you will notice that he doesn't even ask a question.
Stay tuned, my socially challengend friend.
If you haven't already "googled" Grover Norquist, I describe him as the most powerful conservative activist in America.
Bar none.
He was the cheif architect of Bush's tax cuts. In other words he bears a huge responsibility for the fix we're in.
Would you mind elaborating on how you see the tax cuts as having caused problems.