THE LATEST clash between President Obama and Congressional Republicans is about the timing of the former's speech before a joint session of Congress, which initially was proposed to be the same night as a televised debate among GOP presidential candidates. This shows just how ridiculous the partisan divide has become. If the two parties cannot even schedule television appearances without causing a ruckus, what hope do we have that they will work together to solve serious challenges such as the debt, unemployment or entitlement reform?
In fact, this little debacle seems to indicate the two parties are not even communicating with each other. Did no one warn the president that someone from the Republican side might object if he planned for his speech to be at the same time as a previously scheduled debate?
The lack of communication between parties, however, is not the biggest problem facing our nation. The more important issue is the lack of communication between politicians and the general public. No, I am not talking about a disconnect between the two groups regarding policy goals and logistics. I am referring to their lack of substance when communicating to the public. The Republican primary debates are perfect examples of this.
In the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, one candidate would speak for 60 minutes, followed by a 90-minute rebuttal from his opponent and finally a 30-minute closing by the initial speaker. Today's debates have become much shorter, not in terms of overall length, but rather the candidates' speaking time on each issue. The problem is, though, modern societal issues have not become simpler - they have become far more complex.
With the rapid advancement of technology changing every aspect of our lives every year, as well as the growth of government action in both the public and private spheres, modern social and political issues are intertwined like never before. To solve this complicated knot of problems that arise daily, more time and thought are needed, not less.
How does anyone expect to understand an elected official's position on the Dodd-Frank Act or the health care debate in one or two minutes? The bills themselves were 2,000 pages long - and we expect politicians to be able to summarize them into a single paragraph?
In the Iowa State University debate held on Aug. 11, moderator Bret Baier told the candidates "to try to put aside the talking points, to try to put aside the polished lines...." Of course, this request was in vain. To fit these debates into a reasonable time frame, maintain audience interest and cover the important issues of the day, candidates were given around one minute to answer questions and 30 seconds to rebut other candidates' answers. Even if they wanted to do otherwise, candidates only could give the "polished lines" because there was no time for anything else.
When politicians give long, detailed explanations about the technical issues of policy, no one listens. We are caught in a dilemma where short sound bites do not provide nearly enough information, but we as the public are not interested enough in the full explanation. Both sides of the aisle are guilty. President Obama often has been criticized for his slogans such as "Change you can believe in" or "Yes we can." They are too short, vague and lacking of substance, it is said. Republicans making this criticism would do well, however, to remember that they are offering their own policy prescriptions in one minute or less in these debates.
In this age of the 24-hour media cycle, people's attention spans have shrunk. And without public interest, there is nothing that politicians can do themselves. Although there is no way to guarantee that citizens add substance to the public debate, there are some steps we can take to make debates a more functional forum for expressing candidates' beliefs.
First, for primaries we should limit each debate to very specific issues such as U.S. involvement in the Middle East or health care reform. The number of primary debates that are hosted would allow a broad range of topics to be covered while giving each area detailed focus. There is no point in having candidates repeat the same old talking points every debate.
Second, for presidential debates we should bring back the Lincoln-Douglas format, or at least increase the time spent on each question. This will force candidates to give detailed responses to various issues so that debates do not end up being beauty contests or competitions to give the best one-liners.
To solve our nation's problems, we do not need more debate - we need better debate. We, the public, ought to pay more attention to the dreary details of governance, and the politicians ought to do their job by giving us those details outright.
George Wang is an opinion editor for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at g.wang@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 17 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
