Yes But No

An article in The Economist, titled Not Only Politicians Fudge The Issues, points out that respondents tended to reduce the level of their support for concepts when the downsides of that support are pointed out. The respondents in this case are British, but the results are instructive no matter your nationality.

For example, 83% supported the idea that the British military ought to have better equipment, but that support dropped to 46% when it was pointed out that, other things being equal, this would mean that less money would be available for domestic programs. (Should I have said 'programmes'?) Similarly, support for local control of domestic initiatives, which was at 54% of responses, dropped to 29% when it was pointed out that this would likely mean that programs were implemented differently in different places. The only places where this shading did not occur was relative to the taxing of alcohol -- users supported the use of taxes to limit the consumption of alcohol, even when they acknowledged that this meant they'd pay more for a drink -- and relative to support for efforts regarding climate change.

An episode of West Wing had the political people in the White House deciding to produce political ads that were issue-oriented, saying "Here's the facts; here's why we believe as we do". In the show, it was seen as a way to demonstrate their intelligence and forthrightness, to which the electorate would respond. In the real world, where certain parties feel free to make up their own facts and interpretations, this might not work so cleanly, but the concept of political ads that state the pros and cons of stances on certain issues still -- to me, at least -- has a compelling appeal.