Why do politicians never respond directly and directly to a question?

Decades of observation have made only 1 thing clear.


Politics is marketing.Marketing looks at what’s going on in the market and tries to give a candidate the right accents to be vcerelected, preferably with an impressive score. For decades, journalists have been giving so-called media training to politicians to give weapons to come up with difficult questions. Techniques for not letting someone pronounce, techniques to attract certain things into the absurd without going into the core, it’s all Marketing 101. As I have already mentioned a few times, the Book of Cialdini (Influence) is actually the handbook for marketing, sales but also for politicians (who have to praise themselves or the party to convince someone). The voters are a mix of people with little experience, little knowledge or a COM bination of both. Politicians such as the free minister, Steve Stevaert, were masters in the Oneliners. Short but powerful, anyone can remember this if the oneliner is catchy. Hoevel people looking at a debate on the figures and mechanisms behind the oneliner? A few thousand people. The oneliner is sufficient for the rest. It is a very powerful weapon for a politician to put the core of a message in the market. I have never been a fan of Stevaert but he had the talent naturally dissected by Cialdini in his book.

The rich

One of the most important weapons of an influencer is to deliberately blur a concept so that everyone can give it their own interpretation.If you come up with details or an explanation (such as engineers do), then you reach only a fraction of the people. When you say, we are taxes the rich, then almost everyone from middle class to the lowest classes with it. Everyone has his own definition of a rich one. Someone who is unemployed sees his neighbor with a new German wagon ride. For him, the neighbor is rich. And they can contribute a little more. For the neighbor is the wealthy his director, and who can safely pay some more taxes. And for the director, the wealthy is the main shareholder of the company, and they can contribute a little more. It is important that everyone around them sees rich while being rich is actually only for the majority shareholder. The point is that the boutade, we let the rich pay more with many sympathy and that everyone has his own rich eyes. Through the word rich and the rich, a very individual interpretation is left open.

Direct questions

Vague is better as tactics (see above).芒 鈧?艗concretely Responden芒 鈧?may also mean that in a compromise you cannot exchange something for something else because you have linked yourself to that specific fact. It limits your negotiating space. And politicians know that everyone wants to take home something with a negotiation. Both sides want to be able to say that they have won what they wanted.


Politicians who are visible to the people have already come a long way in dealing with the press and asking, with the markeating of themselves and their party.They are people who live in two different worlds, the image world and the world behind the scenes of politics. You better not swap one with the other because that often means end-of-career.

Thanks, Quora user, for the question.

You get a question and you have to give a quick answer.While you could actually use some time to think about it. Not too many Ehm-ehms. Be careful not to say something that can easily be falsified, what insulted someone, what you will reverse later, what your negotiating position deteriorated etc.

Is not involved.Safer just to give a kliche as a response. If it does not stand out too much that it has little to do with the question.

Actually, the answer to that question is very logical.

If a politician (V/m) says something, he/she can be paid a lot, both by the press and by other politicians.

In addition, if they are too clear, his/her answers can deter Kuezers, who hear him/her say things, which they do not stand behind, so that they do not choose that politician (V/m) again.

Politicians are expected to always have the 芒 鈧?虄good 芒 鈧劉 answer ready.Every word they pronounce is judged, weighed and returned. An ill-conceived ruling makes for a risk that they can quickly become fatal.

There are plenty of ministers who have had to resign because of an ill-conceived ruling.So on every question they have to take the time to formulate the best answer.

Firstly because of the press.

Politicians are often judged on their words, not their actions.The press also has a hand to twist those words. ‘ Do you think this is a bad proposal? ‘ ‘ I find it not a sensible proposal. 芒 鈧劉 ‘ so you think it’s a bad proposal? ‘ Then one can say with big headlines in the newspaper: that and it is a bad proposal, but he simply says that he does not find it a sensible proposal. ‘ Bad proposal ‘ is more sensational. More interesting would be why it would be a bad proposition, but reasoning often remains.

The press focuses just on the juicy statements.They try to stoke, instead of informing. The figures are not about the matter.

Secondly because of the media training.

There they learn all sorts of tricks.As no ‘ yes ‘ to say on a question, but to reply with ‘ Those are your words ‘ ‘ You find the secretary of State not a huge stupident ‘ ‘ It was not really sensible as he proceeded here. 芒 鈧劉 ‘ so you find him a huge stommeling芒 鈧劉 ‘ Now you need me no words Put in the mouth. 芒 鈧劉

Often a long speech is cut out but 脙 漏 脙 漏 n sentence and then just that which you would have preferred not to say.The press is not out to show your opinion, but to come up with a juicy quote. Politicians then learn to say just that quote, of which they want to be quoted. The new D66 Foreman also did so when he became a leader and the press made him eagerly ridiculous, how he answered three times exactly the same on a question.

Fun is the tactics to change subject and just say what you want to say.”How do you think the Secretary of state has acted here?” ‘ I do not want to talk about the Secretary of State, but about Mr de Vos because that is our new man for Europe. He is very knowledgeable and bla bla bla ‘ a pity that it is only about the figures.

Thirdly, because they have nothing to say.

Sometimes a party decides with a media offensive.芒 鈧?虄We have to come out with clear Ideas and clear language ‘. Then you hear them talking all the time about bright ideas and plain language. 芒 鈧?虄No decisions must be taken in Hindroom, no, we want clear Ideas that we can explain well to the citizens. We are for renewal therefore we come up with clear ideas. We can explain this well to the citizen and that is why the citizen agrees with us. Everyone is happy with our bright Ideas. 芒 鈧劉

But what are those Ideas then?

芒 鈧?虄We thought well about this and we will explain it in plain language.The citizen agrees with our Ideas. 芒 鈧劉

Especially at the PvdA I noticed that at the time it was very good. Terms such as social justice and solidarity dare not take them into the mouth.They are talking about renewal and clear choices.

Sometimes one uses certain keywords or signal words, then it is about ‘ security ‘ or about ‘ the taxpayer ‘ (we, everyone) who would want something or not.’ We have clear Ideas about security, precisely because we take into account the wishes of the taxpayer. 芒 鈧劉

Fourthly, because it is not yet clear how the cards lie.

In politics, you only have to have an opinion when the race has run. You have to keep you on the plains until it is clear what choices are made, within your party, and then take over the opinion of the majority.You can always show yourself and give the impression that you have already formed your opinion, but you do not provide your own opinion until you know how the cards are by chance you think about it just like that.

Politicians are often super social people who follow the fashion.You can also be a good leader while in fact you only follow fashion. To be a leader, you have to be good at the battle of the hurling and know how to get the people behind you socially. The opinion you have is something else.

So you can bring it very far into politics without even finding anything.People with clear opinions can often be bad against the super social. A nice game is to have a novice defend a position that he is not behind. If this succeeds, he is a good member of the club, otherwise his ideals are still too much in the way.


Because it is useful in the context of consultation to not show the posterior of the tongue.

This seems to me to be the only good reason and is very little.In this case, it is usually said that ‘ I cannot go into it yet ‘, ‘ as long as the consultations are ongoing, I do not want to say anything ‘, quite clear language.

That has two reasons.

POLITCI are not private individuals, who can say anything, whatever they find.

A politician is part of a political party and talks on behalf of that party.He talks not only on his own behalf.

If all of his party mates would chat in the press, without unity of policy and without mutual agreements, it becomes a mess that no one will be more wise.So there are so many meetings in politics: to stay on par, or to get on a line.

The second reason that you do not answer a question directly is that you are at risk of doing all the rush promises you can not get after and that you will be in trouble later on to your ears.

In America, a dire hope of political swell is around the promise, which Trump made during his campaign in 2016 that he would build a wall along the border with Mexico and that the Mexicans would pay the wall.

Now there is a war created between the Democrats and the party of the President, the Republicans.

Trump does not get the 5.7 billion dollar he claimed to build his wall and the Mexicans don’t pay.

He never had to make that promise, without first speaking to the Mexicans to see if they would agree.

And he should have sought out, or a majority of the Americans wanted that wall, if they had to cough up five seven billion dollars for their own tax money.

The atom is out, that they are out now, but I am very suspicious, because Trump has not yet put his signature under the Treaty and extreme right-wing elements in his party are against and find Trump a wither, a sissy, when he agrees with the agreements.

So you see, that as a politician you are not hurried and ill-conceived but what has to call to make people happy with a dead mus!

And with this philosophical thought I will give you back to the studio in Hilversum.

This was focal point, good evening!

Never is a term that is actually not so good because it is about absolutes, but I do understand the question.And where it actually comes down to (I think) is that one does not want to listen. The person sees e.g. the network where the demand is posed (NOS, no style etc), and then forms an attitude (aggressive, not aggressive etc). And then instead of listening to the question, standing still thinking the question dissect and then giving the right or most optimal answer, they simply start talking without saying anything and so they can be there with relatively little to no tear from Kome N.

But the error light not only with the politicians, yes the journalist must ask difficult questions but 9/10 is the approach to talk to someone 芒 鈧?艙klem芒 鈧?so that you can Create some kind of HA I have you, moment.Because that makes nice TV.

Because it is politicians.

Not for nothing that the phrase exists: ‘ Give a political answer ‘.What amounts to: turn around, elaborate on anything and everything, without really answering the question.

Why do they do that?

Because they can always hedge in this way and never really have to take responsibility for their statements.

If politicians give a direct answer a rare time, you will see that this can have considerable consequences.Journalists are the first to pick it up and before you know it you need to justify your statement in all sorts of interviews and talk shows. So such a thing is often deployed as a tactic; If you need some media attention, you want to make a point (regardless of whether it is completely correct or not), you are looking for the media correctly. You throw a one-liner or a controversial statement and you sit at Pauw (just briefly through the bend though , unnuanced). If you do not want a ‘ hassle ‘ then you will give ‘ a political answer ‘.

Politicians are trained to deal with media.Politics as a profession is actually a fairly manipulative game. It comes down to a bit of lying, turning around a bit, being unclear and nevertheless retaining your credibility. So of all not too much, but just enough to get away with it.

That may sound very negative, and many politicians will have become accustomed to this game, that it is normally found.That is politics. In politics there is no room for sincerity and honesty. And you know that if you have political ambitions.

Hans is right, but what a scorraling.

I understand it when a politician is overtaken with a question from the newspaper where it does not know whether or not to verify whether the question is correct.

The same applies to ministers whose ruling can have unforeseen consequences, but about general policy or questions of fundamental basis, your mans should be enough to also give a personal opinion certainly as a second chamber member without a mini-sterile Anchoring

Leave a Reply