Is “I told you so” persuasive?

One of the surprising things the UBP keeps doing is the equivalent of saying “I told you so” in their approach to persuading people on their opinion.  It has gotten so bad that it is becoming rather annoying and makes it difficult to follow their arguments.  Would the UBP be better off focusing on the issues at hand and persuading people of what is in their own best interests rather than focusing on self promotion?

Take their latest opinion piece in the Royal Gazette as an example:

FutureCare emerged in the 2007 election campaign when Premier Brown promised to "provide every Bermudian above the age of 65 with guaranteed health care" for the remainder of their lives. It was a promise made without a plan and without a strategy for how to pay for it. When the United Bermuda Party challenged Dr. Brown on the cost of FutureCare during the campaign, he gave an answer that perfectly captured the political opportunism behind his announcement.

By specifically pointing out “The United Bermuda Party” the UBP has effectively weakened their argument by making it about themselves and adding a lot of unnecessary filler.  They seem intent on convincing people they were wrong rather than standing strong for the future.  Which do you think is more successful at persuading people to support your point of view?  Making them feel like they made the wrong decision or convincing them of what is in their bests interests?

Had the UBP simply said “When challenged, Dr, …” and kept it simple and to the point throughout the piece would people have stuck to the argument they were making instead of potentially being sidetracked?   Unfortunately they don’t stick to the point very well, they dance around and seem intent on suggesting I told you so in numerous places.  Can this really be a winning strategy?

By having specifically mentioned themselves in such a manner they have tainted their piece as self promotional and not really about the issues.  It becomes a “We told you so, you should have voted for us” argument instead of one about what they’re trying to say.  This regardless of whether there were others out there who said the same things, such as the papers themselves.  Would the UBP be better served focusing less on self promotion and more on the issues at hand?  We can only wonder.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by . Bookmark the permalink.

5
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
SlowhandKenCaptain E.R. PitcherTryangle Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Tryangle
Guest

I tend to agree. Doesn’t seem like a winning strategy at all.
They could for their part discuss solutions or amendments that they would implement, but maybe they’re scared the current government will either copycat it or slam it back in their faces?

Slowhand
Guest
Slowhand

Today’s headlines don’t give me any confidence that the ‘new’ party will be any different than the UBP. IMO they would do better to do what they are going to do rather than nit pick at what others are doing.

Captain E.R. Pitcher
Guest

“Only the facts please, only the facts!”

Ken
Guest
Ken

this has happened since 1998. within every criticism that the UBP has had of the PLP government, they have snuck in the “i told you so” clause, and insinuated/implied and in some cases outright said that the electorate either didnt vote intelligently, etc. It makes no sense to insult the very electorate you are trying to woo for support.

Slowhand
Guest
Slowhand

And the PLP is different in what way??