A Serious Joke

It’s not debatable

by Patrick J. Shanahan
10/16/04

‘Tis the season for competition. Major League Baseball’s playoffs are in full tilt, as the Red Sox and Yankees prepare for what is becoming an annual exercise in Bay State agony. College football is going full tilt, and the NFL season is getting up to speed. It is the time of year for tailgating and crisp autumn afternoons spent on bleachers.

And, of course, ‘tis the season for political debates. There are certain things in our culture I just do not get. Presidential debates is one of them. Especially when these debates are cast as a crucial factor in deciding who the President may be. For each debate a “winner” and a “loser” will be declared. This is based, as far as I can tell, on a combination of who was more comfortable before the camera and whose team performed the best post-debate spin. This is meaningless bullhockey.

Can we back up three steps and ask ourselves “What is the purpose of Presidential debates?” Ever since Nixon and Kennedy agreed to go before the TV cameras in 1960, we have made televised debates an integral part of our political culture. But I’ll be darned if I know why. Let’s face it, televised debates are a recasting of 1850s communications technology updated for the television age.

Two arguments are usually forwarded regarding debates. The first is that debates give voters the chance to see “where the candidates stand.” To which I reply, if you have to wait until mid-October to figure out where the candidate’s stand, you are a sorry excuse for a voter, and should stay as far away form the polls as possible. Those who fall into this camp belong to one of two equally unfortunate groups. The first are just who really don’t know, don’t care, and probably won’t vote. These we need not spend any time or empathy on. The second group are those “moderates” who insist they make up their minds one issue at a time. They are not ideologues, you see.They want to weigh each position on the merits before they choose their candidate. In addition to the inherently obnoxious nature of such folks (they cast their inability to make a decision as a virtue) we are still left with the reality that, if they actually cared, they would already know the nuances of the candidate’s response to the issues. They’re just lazy!

So from this perspective the debates are just one more way in which we enable poor citizenship. I can sit in my easy chair and spend all summer watching reruns of "The Apprentice." But if I spend 90 minutes watching the candidates try to avoid the cataclysmic screw up that would result if they said anything that is actually meaningful, I am a fully informed citizen who is primed and ready to vote.

The second rationale for televised debates is that it allows us to better capture the “measure of the man.” By viewing how the candidates perform under pressure, on their feet, in front of millions, we can catch a glimpse of who they are and how they react. Do they display grace, calmness, meanness, humor? The first and most obvious objection to this line of argument is that it didn’t stop Bill Clinton. The debates actually mask the souls of the candidates. It rewards good debaters and skilled communicators. It gives snake oil salesman an advantage over honest but less than eloquent opponents. And, frankly, it not a sufficient opportunity to tell anything about anybody.

Given the choice of evaluating President Bush’s leadership skills under pressure by watching how he behaved in the aftermath of 9/11, versus how he reacts under the klieg lights under pressure from Jim Lehrer, I know which one I find more meaningful. Given an opportunity to evaluate John Kerry on the basis of his Senate voting record versus how well he can dance around his inconsistencies on stage, I’ll opt for his Senate record.

Dan Rather, of all people, has made disparaging remarks in the context of the first round of debates that it was less a “debate” than a “joint appearance” of the candidates. I think that is right. And I think a joint appearance makes far more sense. The purpose of a true “debate” after all, is to persuade an audience of one’s position on a given issue through the marshalling and presentation of fact and logic. We all know that facts and logic have no business in a political campaign. If I wait for a televised debate to define how I feel about Iraq, or about tax cuts, then I am a Loser with a capital L. People do not watch to learn.

They watch - along with the media - to see who will make the “gaffe,” who will throw a zinger of a line, who will look nervous, who will tell a funny joke. Who will “win” according to a scoring system less mature and meaningful than a high school dodge ball game.

The fact that otherwise serious people, on the left and the right, have let themselves get suckered into a debate-mode of thinking is yet one more sign that our political system is in a world of hurt.

I can promise that if - when? - I am nominated for President, I will refuse to debate my opponent. Unless he is ahead.