Lincoln, Douglas, Clinton, Obama
Barak Obama pointed out that the debates are about trivia rather than real issues. Ed Rendell said the same thing while stumping for Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton offered a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Obama has declined, at least for this month. I have some thoughts on this.
Obama said he would rather talk to voters. A debate, especially one where you and your opponent set the rules, can be talking to voters, in my opinion. What I'm not sure about is whether Americans really have enough civil knowledge to understand what they would hear. Think about it. All this trivia and garbage that's been "debated" is something people really do watch. I doubt that the average person realizes there is a problem and is watching with a never-ending hope of finding something of substance. If they have noticed a problem they've either shut down or done something like contribute to a rather whimsical and barely read political blog.
One side of me would be happy to watch such a debate no matter what the level of apathy the general public has. I always remind myself, though, that old style debate simply brings back old style misguided decision making. We complain now about how candidates now need to look good on TV and such rather than having substance. In 1858 a candidate needed to debate well. Nothing against Mr. Lincoln, who I am glad was elected, but debate ability does not define substance and capability no matter how much our romantic sides would like to think otherwise. I know very intelligent people who are introverted and whose best thoughts come only after long periods of thinking. They look like bad leaders, their low confidence from bad experiences makes them feel like bad leaders, and yet they go on to do wonderful things of you throw the job on them anyway and encourage them.
On top of that, I don't think that Americans, regardless of their understanding of government, can evaluate debate. Go back to my friends. They "lose" debate after debate with colleagues and friends who end up making far worse decisions. Too many people in our culture think that the last word wins. In my experience the last word just as often shows the fool who won't shut up.
So I'm conflicted. Old news.
Obama said he would rather talk to voters. A debate, especially one where you and your opponent set the rules, can be talking to voters, in my opinion. What I'm not sure about is whether Americans really have enough civil knowledge to understand what they would hear. Think about it. All this trivia and garbage that's been "debated" is something people really do watch. I doubt that the average person realizes there is a problem and is watching with a never-ending hope of finding something of substance. If they have noticed a problem they've either shut down or done something like contribute to a rather whimsical and barely read political blog.
One side of me would be happy to watch such a debate no matter what the level of apathy the general public has. I always remind myself, though, that old style debate simply brings back old style misguided decision making. We complain now about how candidates now need to look good on TV and such rather than having substance. In 1858 a candidate needed to debate well. Nothing against Mr. Lincoln, who I am glad was elected, but debate ability does not define substance and capability no matter how much our romantic sides would like to think otherwise. I know very intelligent people who are introverted and whose best thoughts come only after long periods of thinking. They look like bad leaders, their low confidence from bad experiences makes them feel like bad leaders, and yet they go on to do wonderful things of you throw the job on them anyway and encourage them.
On top of that, I don't think that Americans, regardless of their understanding of government, can evaluate debate. Go back to my friends. They "lose" debate after debate with colleagues and friends who end up making far worse decisions. Too many people in our culture think that the last word wins. In my experience the last word just as often shows the fool who won't shut up.
So I'm conflicted. Old news.
Labels: bananas, common sense, Hype '08, rhetoric, theory
posted by Nate at
18:20
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home