Why political debates aren’t very helpful
Fri, 10/03/2008 - 16:37 | rlp
I don’t think political debates are very helpful, at least not in the format we see these days. I can’t speak to how helpful debates were in the past. The problem with debates is that they are several steps removed from reality.
First, the candidates are asked fairly obvious questions, and they answer these questions with various versions of their stump speeches. Last night, for example, each vice presidential candidate made claims about the other presidential candidate’s voting history. But what does that mean? Sarah Palin says that Barack Obama voted against some bill, which on the surface makes it sound like he doesn’t care for soldiers as much as John McCain. But then we hear from Senator Biden that John McCain also voted against that bill.
So the debate becomes just another format for candidates to deliver campaign speeches. True, the speeches are more off-the-cuff, so you can see how they react under pressure. But that’s what we are hearing. Sound bites and campaign speeches. We hear what the campaigns want us to think about the issues. This is one step removed from reality.
Now if that was all that was happening with modern debates, it wouldn’t be so bad. After all, politicians have been giving campaign speeches for as long as anyone can remember.
Unfortunately, there is a second step that takes us even further away from reality. Right after the event itself, television pundits step in to analyze the debate. The debate itself was an event in time, but the minute it is over it no longer exists except in the fading memories and impressions of the few people who were actually listening closely.
“But the debate is recorded,” you say. “So doesn’t that mean it’s a permanent record?”
Yes, but almost no one will watch that debate again. Will you? Will you spend another hour and a half wading through all of their sound bites? Why would you? What would you hope to gain from it that? What actually happens is the reality of the debate gives way to the reality of what political pundits are saying about the debate. And if anyone does watch the debate again, they will probably just watch self-serving highlight reels put together by those same pundits.
Last night we saw Sarah Palin and Joe Biden debate. Afterward, many pundits said, “Sarah Palin did what she needed to do. She didn’t melt down. She didn’t embarrass herself. She “connected with her base,” whatever the hell that means. She did those things. She didn’t dazzle with facts or knowledge, but she did what she needed to do.”
“Joe Biden,” the pundits are saying, “was more factually grounded and seemed more in command of his words and with his presence. But he was expected to be more knowledgeable and experienced, so that doesn’t gain him much. Everyone knows that he has been a senator for a long time. So though he did a great job, there probably won’t be much change in the polls.”
There, you see? They’ve created the reality of that debate. Most Americans did not watch the debate, or sort of half-watched it while they did laundry. Many just watched the highlight reels that began minutes afterward. They will accept the reality of the debate as defined by the pundits, and that will in fact become the reality of the debate.
I watched carefully, listening and measuring their words. I have impressions about the debate that are a little more extreme than the pundits. There is no reason for me to give them here because it is not my purpose for this little piece of writing to be a campaign speech of its own.
But I would like to suggest another process that you and I can use to help decide how we will vote.
First, choose the issues that are most important to you. For me, the war is the most important issue. A war is a terrible thing. A destroyed nation and hundreds of thousands of dead people is more important than our local economy. I’m not trying to convince you of that. I’m saying that is MY biggest concern.
After that the state of health care in our nation is a priority for me. This is in part because my family has experienced how easy it is lose health insurance. And without insurance, you are simply gambling that you do not become extremely ill or get injured. My daughter’s very lives are on the line, so yes, that’s rather important to me.
After you select one or two or maybe three top issues, take the time to research and read what the candidates say they are going to do. Since you’re only dealing with a few issues, surely you can do that. And you won’t be listening to what the candidates say about their opponent. You’ll put forth your best effort to find out the truth about what they plan to do.
Then make your choice.
THIS IS IMPORTANT: Due diligence is all that is required of you. If you have a Ph.D. in economics, for example, you should bring all of your knowledge to play in your decision. If you never graduated from high school and have a hard time reading, bring the best you have to this as well.
In summary:
1. The television political experts are creating their own reality. Listen to them if you wish, but do not give them much authority.
2. Choose your top issues and concentrate on those.
3. Bring the best of your intellect and experience to the table. That’s all that is required of you.
Vote well, my friends. This stuff matters.
rlp
The Irony of Democracy
RLP, excellent post on the state of the media with regards to politics. You're right, they do create their own reality. And, if you read The Irony of Democracy, there's a strong case that the media manipulates the races intentionally for ratings purposes.
2. choose your top issues. I
2. choose your top issues.
I think this is the worst way to choose a president. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomburg said it best, on Meet the Press, a few weeks ago. He said that people often choose who they're going to vote for based upon issues A, B, and C. However, once elected, those very presidents often have to make decisions on D, E, and F, issues that no one has even considered (or at least didn't consider very important). Ergo, we must choose our candidate based upon the way in which that individual makes decisions and the process that they take.
People re-elected Bush, in '04, mostly on the Gay Marriage Amendment stuff and because he was a "War" president. However, who would've thought that his big blunders would be Katrina, ignoring diplomacy (oh, wait...), etc., etc., too numerous to list. All of these issues that had nothing to do with abortion and homosexuality.
So...please, for the love of God and Country, let's choose a candidate who is thoughtful, introspective, surrounds him/herself with smart people, and makes decisions that are sound.
Obviously I disagree. Notice
Obviously I disagree. Look, we're not choosing between a room full of politicians so you can pick and choose based on character issues that are hard to track. It's going to be Obama or McCain. Both of them are thoughtful men who will doubtless surround themselves with good people. Well, at least I thought so until McCain picked Palin. But still, he's a thoughtful guy I guess.
So how will you choose now? Notice I didn't say that you pick the issues that most benefit you. I said decide what is most important to you. I think the war and health care are the two most pressing issues. I think that. So I'm going to vote for the president who I think will best address these.
You have to make a choice based on something. Set your priorities.
Now, is it possible that the president you choose will disappoint you? Sure. And is it possible that other issues will take precedent? Yeah.
I think it is naive to look at Obama and McCain and simply say, "I'm going to pick the man with the most character."
Really? How will you decide that? And if you believe the war is wrong and thousands of lives are on the line, how will you justify voting for the candidate who thinks the war is working? "I think he's wrong on the war, but I think he has character."
I don't see it.
One of the most important
One of the most important qualities to me in a leader is the ability to comprehend and respond effectively to both existing issues and the unforeseen. That's admittedly not as concrete as "What's your position on the war, stay or go?" but it's also not as abstract as "character."
The way they run their campaigns, the strategies they do and don't decide to deploy, and the people they choose are what I care about. The war issue--that's easy. We already know the position each has staked out. What I can learn from their ongoing campaign is how they act and respond, which I extrapolate to mean (more or less) who they'll be once they're in office.
So it's sort of "character," but it's not vague. I've been impressed all the way through with the Obama campaign's ability to assess what and where to strike, and how to do it with a minimum of mess. The Clinton campaign didn't do that as well, and lost. The McCain campaign isn't doing it as well either.
One thing they tell you about job interviews is to "do the job at the interview." If this me-too, poorly reasoned sloppiness is how McCain and his people are going to run the country, then--issues aside, "character" aside--he's not anybody I want in charge. And I do think I have enough real information to make that decision, but it's one meta-level removed from hard issues.
Choose your issues.
That's the method I'm using. It really helps to cut through the information overload and make the decision easier. What matters in a president is what they are going to do.
I think we have artificially
I think we have artificially elevated the president to cult status here in America.
As if this one man can actually deliver on any of his campaign promises.
It is the voting public that has this "one-vote-every-four-years" misplaced hope that indeed the president can make or break policy.
What is needed more than the next political messiah is a very robust 3rd party that is truly part of a different political philosophy. Neither the Democratic party or the Republican party as they are today can truly be non-partisan. The next president will not be able to move, shake, sway, reform or fix what is broke in Washington. People in this very vast pluralistic country need more than selecting the lesser of 2 evils. It gets tiring to hear the dyed-in-the-wool party types blame, grumble, whine, complain, demean, point fingers, quibble, rant & just plain act like spiteful power hungry demigods making complex problems seem like one-man fixes.
The American voting public has been sold a bill-of-goods thinking that their one vote is sufficient to make a government of the people, by the people. Until they wake up & vote the old guard out & get some new people with no old boy connections into the Congress then you will continue to have the "business as usual" Washington dog-and-pony show every 4 years whether an elephant or a donkey is stabled in the White House...
I totally agree. Why do we
I totally agree. Why do we really only get two serious choices? It IS picking from the lesser of two evils. Sure, we can vote for whoever's name we want to write in but it will never make a difference. I SO wish Ron Paul would have been a viable choice. Don't get me started on the electoral college/vote. Whoever thought that was a good idea?
3rd Party
I realize I am being simplistic in bringing up a 3rd party, but I do believe our country is far too vast to be represented by a 2 party system that is less like a counter-balance & more like enemies...
Politics has become a moral battleground instead of an ideological compromise with the intent of actually serving the American public...
The American voting public have played right along with the silly posturing of political pundits that work the system to their advantage. Instead of voting for people that want to be fiscally responsible they vote the party line or look no further than the promises being offered to them by those wanting to get elected. It would only take one voting revolt & the message could be sent. Instead we have the situation only getting worse, not better. Americans are feeling more & more sectarian & less unified when it comes to common sense issues (I know, this is a major generality). We've become defensive about our piece of the pie. No more Mr. & Mrs. Niceguy. We want to ensure our own special interest is addressed & protected. No more thinking in terms of a homogenous citizenry...
Young people are quick to sense the posturing & the 'us-versus-them' attitudes, but they are not that disciplined when it comes to cooperation either. It is more a live-and-let-live philosophy that does not include a much more powerful group synergy. They need to make an effort that does show some result in the political arena. I think this election is one the younger people are actually interested in. And if they get involved & vote & something happens then they may feel empowered to do it again.
If Obama is elected I know that his flaws will become apparent in short order. He is not America's Answer Man. He will not be able to unify a country that is becoming more divided with each Presidential election. I do not feel he is the one individual that can focus on the fixable issues & garner the necessary cooperation needed to get the job done. But then McCain is not the answer man either. The choices we are given seem to be more & more deficient as the needs only grow. Seems the gulf between parties is simply not going to be bridged. There must be some other grass roots movement that can break the mold & infuse the political process in this country with a much needed boost.
Anyway you look at it, what is really needed will not be provided once all the ballots have been counted in November...
modern debates
Modern debates also allow modern methods for analysis. The transcripts of the debates have been entered at Many-Eyes and you can visualise what has been said by both, and by either, party, and make your own visualisations. It would be great for people to use these tools to highlight their issues of interest as you suggest by bringing in data they know about.
http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/browse/data?q=palin%20biden%...
Ralf
Amen, Gordon...
It's way too easy to get suckered by a catchphrase or a soundbite. Truth is, this democracy thing takes a little bit of work. I've done my research and my wife and I will be heading out tomorrow to take part in early voting here in Ohio. Most of the work was spent trying to figure out what the hell is going on with all the local stuff! However, I'm very much looking forward to it. Even at 43 years-old, I still get a kick out of voting.
Cheers!
James Curtis Smith
http://www.justjames.org
I think the following is
I think the following is also very important:
Talk to your friends and neighbors about what is important to them and what they think about the candidates.
Democracy is best practiced in a community and not by lots of isolated individuals.
You can tell you've spent
You can tell you've spent some time with Borg. No doubt that the parallel comparison to how this applies to the meta-narrative of scriptures and how we construct or impose meaning upon them has not escaped your attention.
Turning back to the nature of the debates, I would suggest to you or anyone who is dissatisfied with debates and is concerned with the value that they deliver to the election process to make their opinions known directly to the commission that runs them. We are the protectors of our own civil liberties in this instance and as such we must not ignore our responsibilities in the matter. Yes, you've written an good essay on the nature of the debates and media and how we can compensate for their weaknesses. But what are you going to do about addressing those weaknesses directly?
There is a comparison, but
There is a comparison, but I've been thinking about deconstruction issues like this for a long time. This is just the philosophy of history.
this country's political
this country's political system is in dire need of reform. i propose that we adopt a six week campaign period...two year long primary seasons only lead to more division and rancor. making it six weeks would cut down on the waste, the $$$$ that is spent (mis-spent!) and free up those who are incumbents to spend the majority of their time doing the job they were elected to do.
let's end this rubbish campaigning and get back to the real world.
Wading through the morass of information
Pundits presumably construct their narrative by going over/cherry picking key quotes/claims made during the debate. Given the mostly-neutral fact checking websites out there, you might as well DIY. Sites like factcheck.org and politifact.com do a pretty good job of breaking down the debates into discrete claims made by both parties, letting you consume as much as your brain (and schedule) can handle at once. Reviewing what each candidate said, and how true it actually was, is tremendously helpful in arriving at your own conclusions about both candidates.
In general, I've found most presidential debates terribly unhelpful over the past 8 years. The first McCain/Obama debate was a vast improvement, since the rules encouraged the candidates to talk/react directly to each other. I hope we have more of those, as they have a better chance of getting each candidate off the script and making them survive on their brains and wits.