What Would You Have Done Differently?

There is a question that surfaces in elections that is actually a good question, which is itself a rarity. This question has been asked in many elections over time, so it is hard to know when it may have first been asked. That question is a version of: “What would you have done differently?”

How far back some version of this question goes in American politics would require a great deal of research, but I have no doubt that everyone alive today has heard it throughout their lifetimes. That it comes in various forms and contexts would indicate that it may be or have become a boilerplate question to ask a politician during elections. Regardless, it came up again during Harris’s segment on “The View”. When asked what she would have done differently during the last four years, Harris’s response was that “There wasn’t much that came to mind”. At one level this is a very typical and expectable answer during an active campaign. It also evoked a predictable response and criticism from her opponent. However, they’re politicians so their respective reactions are not particularly well thought out or considered.

The larger issue is: what are the opportunities missed given the question was asked?

For Trump there were many misses, but given his tactical campaign style of just ‘going off’ on anything and everything without an required connection to rationality, intelligence or facts it’s not clear he could or would be able to take advantage of them. It’s also problematic for him since some of the things that would be relevant would be equally or worse when considered in the context of his own actions/inactions or policies. Some weapons truly are double-edged and can do as more or more damage if used by an unskilled user.

On Harris’s part the misses were more opportunities that could have benefited her campaign by expanding on topics and issues that can be exploited to further differentiate her and Democrats from Trump and Republicans. In addition, she could have re-framed the question to point out one of the biggest flaws in how the media uses and abuses it.

On the last point first, whenever asked this question an astute politician (I am theoretically assuming that there are such things) would point out that in the absence of the current knowledge available through 20-20 hindsight it’s unlikely a different decision would be made now given the conditions being the same now as then. If on the other hand if today’s knowledge was available back then, the decision(s) made back then are highly likely to have been different than they were; just as if you (the person the question) knew then what you know now your question would be different. Lastly, accepting and acknowledging what we now know and the conditions that now exist there are clearly lots of things that Harris ought to state that she would do differently; and if anyone can provide a functional time-machine, she would be happy to go back and take advantage of the knowledge of the future that she would bring back to the decision making processes of the past. Of course given the prevailing scientific view that you “cannot go back in time” this also explains why American voters cannot correct the errors that they have made in the past, they can only use what they know today to try to prevent making the same mistakes that were made previously.

Now to the opportunity misses that Harris could have seized by making the points above first. The easiest things that she would now do differently based on her current knowledge of facts, current conditions, and opportunities that exist now that did not exist then or were not knowable then. There is almost no issue, topic or problem that cannot be reacted to today that cannot be dealt with more effectively and beneficially than it was four years or eight years ago. What is needed to the competence, knowledge and critical/analytic thinking and problem-solving that can provide the solutions and options apply in the here and now; and that don’t just repeat old errors again and again.

There are opportunities on the biggest to smallest of issues that consume so much of today’s energy and resources in the election campaigns. The Economy being numero uno puts it into an obvious position. As the Economy impacts every aspect of life and government either directly or indirectly, it explains why there is a constant emphasis on it in all campaigns, even if little of pragmatic value. A huge opportunity exists for how to use US tariff policies and decisions both intelligently and effectively both in an economic context and as a campaign issue. Neither party or candidates across the board do well here. In addition, there are options for using economic policies to help benefit other national and international issues, problems and situations which are not even seen as connected with the Economy. As the Economy relates to everything, it can be used in support of issues like: Immigration, Housing/Homelessness, Healthcare, Taxes/Tax-Reform, Foreign Relations, National Security, Drug problems, Social-Media abuses, Crime, Abortion/Reproductive Rights, …, pick your issue/problem.

On another top issue: Immigration, there are also lessons to be learned from the failures that both parties have managed to deliver on for decades. Besides using some economics opportunities in responding to Immigration issues, dealing with Immigration can also provide opportunities for Foreign Relations, National Security, Drug/Crime, and even Housing.

There are two points that characterize why not seeing the ‘different things’ that could be done now was a campaign error. First, you can cast your vision for the future along the lines of what you are already promoting and campaign on without ceding ground to your opponents. Second, you can put forward new solutions to other issues, problems and topics while demonstrating that your opponents don’t have solutions and where responsible for many of the problems that are now at the top of everyone’s list of issues.

The skill required to see and seize these opportunities goes against those normally seen in politicians; but it is a teachable and learnable skill. It provides benefits well beyond that of campaigning; and it is a sorely needed ability for a leader, even if rarely seen in leaders or their advisers.

Is it to late to use this strategy? No. But the returns that can be attained are diminishing every day.