2004 Debates: Style over Substance
Oct 15 '04
The Bottom Line couldn't agree with Ralph Nader more...
Ah, the debates. In theory, the presidential debates should be a means of contrasting platforms and giving people the best idea of what each side is proposing. That is, after all, what one expects of a debate: differentiation of ideas, discussion, et cetera. But if the triada of presidential debates we've had in the last few weeks can tell us anything, it is that the audience of a debate is more integral to that debate than the issues or the combatants. The tens of millions of people watching this debate in the United States, as well as abroad, are not exactly intellectuals. Not all of them. But beyond even that, a great majority of that population views politics in the same vein as they do fashion; presidential candidates are merely two more celebrities. In effect, this growing mass of superficial voters, and the unique expectations they present, have turned the debates into less a test of intelligence and competence, and more of a display of style and personality, where the 'charming' one is the victor.
Before anything, I'd like to express my own view of the debates. Simply enough, I think that Kerry dominated all three of them. His tactic of attacking the president's four year reign proved effective in exposing the weaknesses of the president's leadership. Some may argue that, because Bush more often laid out a plan, that he is more upfront and trustworthy. But that's a fallacy. Kerry's insistence on targetting Bush's record intends to not only underscore the damages the imcumbent's policies have inflicted on the nation, but to prove that his 'plans' for the future are going to be equally (in)effective; that he is in fact disingenuous (honest as he sounds) and not worthy of any trust.
That isn't to say that Kerry has not offered any of his own plans. Minimum wage, education, health care, gun control, and tax reform have been some of his strongest points, and areas where the incumbent has stumbled. In terms of foreign policy and the war in Iraq, while Kerry's position is obviously the better one (anyone still disputing this must be out of their minds), both candidates began sounding very repetitive on the issue during the second debate. That may be because the tired positions of "No WMDs, No connection, no justification" versus "Pre-emptive attack, stop Saddam from supporting terrorists" have been exhausted on virtually every news channel since March of 2003. I don't think that, at this stage, anybody is going to change their minds about Iraq; thus the candidates, at least on this matter, are preaching to their own voters.
As for Bush's response to the Kerry platform, it became quite clear during each of his mini-speeches that the president either misunderstands his opponent's idea, or misunderstands his own. Case in point: the comment about a "Global Test" offered by Kerry, which has since the first debate been beaten to death by right-wing rhetoric. You can twist it around to mean that the country ought to ask other nations whether it should 'defend' itself; or you could look at it as a way of building a stronger coalition and gaining diplomatic force. You can look at it as a better way of avoiding war, as America is avoiding war now with Iran. The controversy over this remark is preposterous: for one, waging war on Iraq was an offensive, not a defensive movement; and two, America needs a strong coalition before it engages in conflict (look at the instability of Iraq after the US charged in with only a few strong allies), thus making this at its essence an international issue, not a purely domestic one.
Bush also mentioned, in today's debate, that he does not try to impose his religion on others. He then said, maybe a sentence or two later, that his policies are based on his principles, and his principles are based on who he is 'inside' or some shit. Now, if who 'you are' is a religious right-wing extremist, then your policies are obviously going to be heavily based on your doctrine of faith. Now, aren't faith-guided policies, by definition, an imposition of religious doctrine? Aren't you imposing your faith on the people when you make policies based on faith? How can this man stand up in front of 50 million people and openly lie to them like that? Bush talks about Kerry's credibility... well, he shattered his own credibility (whatever remained of it) in less than a couple of sentences.
But even without that line, who in their right mind would believe that Bush's policies don't impose the Christian doctrine on the people? Look at his extremist views of abortion and gay rights - the man is trying to close the gap between church and state, fulfilling the wishes of radical neocons like Ann Coulter. His continuous references to God in every other speech, and the alleged 'divine mission' of spreading 'freedom', make him seem almost Stalinistic in positing himself as a God (well, executer of God's will.) Only thing is, evil as he was, Stalin was a dignified man.
Positions aside, the debating tactics of both sides were, in a word, unspectacular. In another word: predictable. With one exception, both sides conducted themselves with almost overt civility, doling out compliments and making concessions in the midst of what has been one of the ugliest political campaigns in recent memory. Listening to the two monoliths exhaust formalities, you could almost forget about the lambasting the rivals have given each other in televised ads, or the stupid controversies about military records, or the grave assertions that "if Kerry is elected, the country will suffer another major terrorist attack". It is quite a mask against the mudslinging that is at the core of this race for presidency.
Which brings me to my point: are the formalities; the considerations of physical appearance, demeanor, and relatability, turning the presidential debates (and perhaps the entire campaign) into a glorified fashion show? Is the modern method of micro-targeting the future of voter persuasion? And finally, why are so relatively few people concerned that perhaps the most important role in the world - the job of running the strongest superpower - is being handed out to the guy that is the most personable, rather than most qualified?
If we put Bush and Kerry in a room without any pre-planning, and told them to debate on the issues central to the campaign, Kerry would from such a debate emerge victorious. But it would not be the kind of victory that he has achieved before. Bush can't speak without his think-tank, and the win would be an immediate one for Kerry. Without the Cheneys, Karl Roves, and Matthew Dowds, Bush would be stuck trying to develop an intelligent response to Kerry's arguments. And this assumption is based on fact, mind you - many have said, Dick Clarke included, that Bush hardly contributes to White House discussions. And just look at him. I know that physical appearance does not necessarily dictate mental capacity, but honestly, if I didn't know he was the president, I would swear that Bush was the real Alfred E. Neuman.
Is this the kind of man that should run the free world? A man with horrible language skills, who has to pause for three seconds before he calls a terrorist organization a 'group of folks'? Who responds to a refutal of one of his central arguments against Kerry with that very same argument? Who has trouble pronouncing "Abu Ghraib", let alone admitting to any guilt for the scandal? Who looks in the face of not only an entire nation, but a world that that nation has widespreading influence upon, and lies to them about his view of Osama bin Laden? Who, after being asked to list his three failures as president, assumes the position of flawless state-head (a common tactic of dictators) and refuses to list even one?
Is this an emerging trend? Elevating idiots into positions of power because we can't relate to anything more? Dare I say voting out of sympathy? Why don't we take this a step further - or maybe a few steps back - and hire the dumbest fucks into NASA? Why not break down standards in every sector of society, kill progress, and return to the Salem era while we're at it? A vote for Bush is a vote for reactionary extremism.
See, by electing this man into office, the American public is saying that education is essentially unimportant; that wisdom and judgment are third in line behind charm and appeal. The fact that Bush, who lost every debate and continues to make himself look foolish on National television, is even still in competition, speaks to a greater problem within society: the fear and hatred of intellect. It starts early, in elementary school, where labels of "nerd" and "loser" are attached to anybody that dares pick up a book of their own volition, and it spreads, virus-like, into the adult-years, where it is exacerbated by Neo-conservative politics and the attendant bigotry of them. In such a way (and it is promoted in all forms of media), society breaks down the influence of the intellectual minority, and conservatism has a fighting chance. And thus, Bush, who in any European country would find himself a target of national ridicule, has an edge: where the opposition has to break down their platform for the masses, Dubya can merely speak his mind.
And so it is that the campaigns are more about style than substance. It doesn't matter so much what a candidate has to say, or even how they say it, but it does matter if they appear at baseball games, or are interviewed in hunting magazines. It doesn't matter if they're not insulting the public's intelligence with speeches of pure rhetoric, but changing a vote in Senate will have dire consequences with the American people. It doesn't matter if you read books (My Pet Goat doesn't count), or have ever read, but being married, and a Catholic, is oh-so essential. Folks, this is why democracy doesn't work.
(Not that Canada has it any better. We did, after all, elect Dalton McGuinty into office in Ontario, who "discovered" a deficit a few days after he was signed in. Yes, the Cult of the Cretin is a pandemic; the question is, how long before our prejudices and thoughtless decisions start World War 3?)
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
xeno3998
|
 - Top 1000 |
|
Location: A Cardboard Box
Reviews written: 298
Trusted by: 267 members
About Me:
I'm back! new site: www.jebuslives.com
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.