Specificity is usually provided for the benefit of the audience. Specificity is usually thought to be a good trait. However, in heated campaigns, specificity can come back to bite you. What do I mean? If you provide specifics about a topic (say, how you’re going to fix the economy or what changes you’re going to make to Medicare), then your opponent can pounce all over you on those specifics and yell and scream about why your idea is terrible.
That’s great politics but the problem with that is there is no accountability and no understanding. Governor Romney’s campaign tactic of elect me first, then I’ll show you how I’ll make things better, may be good politics but it does nothing to help the voter decide. If Governor Romney has some secret plan, that scares me because I would like to know what that plan is so I can decide if it’s a plan I’d like to follow. On the flip side, and even scarier, is that Governor Romney has no idea what he’ll do if elected and is simply using this as a stall tactic so he and his think tank can figure something out. Either way, this tactic does nothing to help the voter decide.
This isn’t just a problem for Governor Romney; President Obama is guilty of the same technique. However, President Obama has provided some insight as to how he wants to improve things. And, more importantly, he realizes this is not a quick fix. When asked last week by a reporter in Colorado about how the President would grade himself, here was his response: “You know I would say incomplete.” Governor Romney’s spokesperson replied to this comment: “If President Obama can’t even give himself a passing grade, why would the American people give him another four years?” Therein lies the problem; this is not a quick fix! This recovery requires a good plan (one that people actually know) and proper implementation of that plan. And, time. This country declared its independence in 1776. It did not elect its first president until 1792. Time.