The political "debate" on health-care reform is a lesson for advocates. Regardless of your views on the merits of the issue, I think the proponents did a dismal job in promoting it.
This weekend I read two different opinion columns that concluding this as well--that the proponents' lack of clarity dragged the bill down. Although I don't think every advocate should argue using a marketing theme similar to beer commercials, your story or argument must have a theme or synopsis that your reader or listener immediately grasps.
Justice Scalia and Bryan A. Garner in
Making Your Case (2009) also discuss the multiple benefits of clarity: "Clarity is amply justified on the ground that it ensures you'll be understood. But in our adversary system it performs an additional function.
The clearer your arguments, the harder it will be for your opponent to mischarcterize them." (emphasis added)
Garrison Keillor's Sunday column entitled
"Get real and consider the basic question." "The problem for Democrats right now is that nobody can explain health-care reform in plain English, 50 words or less. It's all too murky. . . . like all murky stuff, it is liable to strike people as dangerous or unreliable."
Ever had a judge ask you what's this case all about--and you coudn't tell them in 30 seconds or less?
Frank Rich's Sunday
column:
"Worse, the master communicator in the White House has still not delivered a coherent message on his signature policy.
