I have written about this on two previous occasions. With the upcoming election, I thought it might be interesting to bring it up again.
Many times we hear that a candidate has an agenda or is supported by special interests. These two terms are probably some of the most misused and abused expressions in a political campaign.
Agenda: What's wrong with having an agenda? As a matter of fact all candidates need to have agendas. They have to be able to state what they want to accomplish. That is an agenda. Voters need to have agendas. They need to know what they want their candidate(s) to accomplish. If a candidate does not have an agenda, then that person, if elected, is going to take office on a blind track. Having an agenda is only a negative if that agenda is different from your agenda as a voter.
Special interests: This is another abused and misused term. When a candidate has an agenda, then that candidate will be supported by folks who agree with that agenda. Hence, they are special interests. Again, what's wrong with that? Special interests are only negative if they disagree with your personal special interests.
I just wish candidates and political analysts (and the general public) would quit the abuse of these two phrases.
