26 September 2008
Politics should be like Software Development
I'm watching the presidential debates. Each candidate makes claims that the other said "this", then the other retorts with, "No, I said 'that'." Back and forth. So how do you know who's telling the truth, who's lying, who's twisting the truth, and who's misunderstood who?
How great would it be to have a list of things that each candidate stated at any given time, then when whoever gets elected, we can all see if they've actually done what they said they'd do. It'd be kinda like SW requirements for some project--you define them, your teams implement them in the software, then other teams make sure they were implemented as stated, then you all get together and talk about (and tell the rest of the company) the good things you did and the bad things you did.
Who in the public actually keeps our president accountable? I sure couldn't tell you what Dubbya claimed he did and if he did it. It just doesn't seem like there's much accountability for the things these guys say they're going to do.
Also, it seems like these guys don't know if the other is talking about strategy, tactics, or post-mortem topics. One attacks the other's strategies, then the first justifies with their tactics, then the first attacks back talking about the results of everything. Is it that unclear? It just seems like candidates thrive (or are told they'll thrive) on attacking the other, and in order to retort "politically", they work around the issues and talk about something else.
It's just annoying at how much of a TV show these campaigns have become--candidates can say whatever they want to say as long as it entertains the public. They work on our emotions, using planned out catch phrases and directed topics. But once the winner gets in office, who's there to keep them accountable?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment