Why are politicians good at speaking but less good at thinking?

At the moment in both USA and UK politics we have two leaders arguing the what rather than the how. In other words, they focus their arguments on what they are going to achieve rather than how they are going to achieve it. It’s so simple, it is not easy to suppose a reason. Perhaps it is that the how of things, the best course of action, is complex whereas the what, is simple. Perhaps it is cunning or at worst, deceipt.

For example, today the United Kingdom House of Commons will vote on how the conservative party are proposing to leave European Union. I say ‘the conservative party’ but even many conservatives do not agree with the terms of withdrawal being proposed. In complex situations where there is compromise and negotiations to overcome, there are often several directions to follow, all of which achieve a similar objective. In this case it is to withdrawal from the European Union. However the Prime Minister, who is renowned for being secretive and poor at communication, has only one ‘deal’. As a demonstration of her ‘iron will’, or stubbornness as others would see it, she is arguing that the only democratic course for those who believe in the British system of government, is to support her how. There is no plan B, or how B. By either lazy thinking on her part of a political modus operandi that forces others to support her for the wrong reason, plan B is to crash. Fear of a ‘hard Brexit’ is not the right reason to approve her proposed how to leave Europe. That is doubtful politics ethically, and likely to back fire. It is a good example of how some politicians prefer to argue about objectives, rather than examine in fine detail, how to get there.

Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, exactly the same process is being exploited by Mr. Trump to get his own way. His what is to keep ‘unwanted immigrants’ out of America. To justify the ‘unwanted’ part of this aim is to categorise them as ‘bad people’ and to associate them with drug dealing and criminality.

Having painted such a clear picture that even the most slow of Americans can cotton onto, he then moves onto the how – the solution. This is where clear and objective thinking starts. A high school student faced with the same problem would ask for the facts and figures, interview those from all sides affected by the problem, examine and assess acceptable solutions to similar situations in other countries, poll locally for the preferred solutions by different interest groups and then do the same process in political circles to gain support and justify costs with benefits.

I expect neither Mrs May nor Mr Trump have been through this or a similar process. Their civil servants may have done, since they are experienced in the process of governing, but the politicians? Mr Trump has boasted how he makes decisions using his ‘instinct’. I expect a gambler or failed businessman is familiar with this type of decision making. But the objective is not to make a decision, it is to enable the right decision to be made in the interests of the greatest number of tax paying patriots in the present and the future.

Mr T. believes that ‘good fences make good neighbours’ as Robert Frost put it. That familiar metaphor is not analogous to the problem of international migration. Your next door neighbour is not breaking down your garden fence in fear of his or her life and planning to stay in your prize flower bed for the unforeseeable future.

He believes that walls keep people and drugs out. The ‘devil’ as always is in the detail or the how of the solution of a wall. His security advisers say that the wall should be see-through so that people in proximity of the wall on the other side can be closely monitored. This is standard advice and, for instance, why bus stops favour glass screens in their construction. However, those wishing to prevent drugs being passed across the border using plastic pipes pushed through the gaps to slide through drugs; they will be pleased to have a wall made of vertical steel girders with gaps. Even high security prisons, have problems with drugs coming into gaols and breaching the wall is one method used.

When Mr Trumps opposition refuse to pay for a border wall on the grounds that is not the best solution, Mr T plays his trump card; the one we have all seen before.

‘Why do you not want American citizens to be safe?’

Magicians use this. It is called distraction and in political debate, it works as well. If one party is arguing about the detail of things, methods, factual arguments, informed advice and debate etc. etc. the other party just sits up and says something not about the how, but about the what.

‘Oh, so you are in favour of illegal immigrants murdering and stealing and bringing drugs into our country.’

‘Oh, so you are in favour of ignoring the will of the British people and the process of democracy and you want the country to crash and all the negative consequences?’

Listen carefully and watch their practised skills in deception.