WHAT MAKES a debate? Merriam-Webster defines it as "a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides." The type of competition implied by this definition is a far cry from the free-for-all contests which television viewers have taken to calling the Republican "debates" of the 2012 election season.
The debates have proven popular: According to The New York Times, the Republican debate aired on Fox in September attracted 6.1 million viewers, almost twice as many as some of the Republican debates in 2007. There have already been nine such events featuring assorted members of the GOP field with many more planned, but the prevalence of style over substance at these debates forces reflection on the sad condition of politics in the United States.
Debate attendees have cheered at the mention of Rick Perry's staggering execution record, booed at a gay soldier who asked if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would be reinstated and gleefully shouted "yeah" when Ron Paul was asked if the uninsured should be allowed to die. I cannot imagine there are many conservatives who have heard all of these responses and thought, "That's the side I'm proud to be on!"
Of course, the most spectacular performances tend to come from the candidates themselves. Following the Oct. 18 Nevada debate, the defense Herman Cain offered of his "9-9-9" plan - or "9-0-9," or whatever it will have mutated into by the time this is printed - was criticized for its regressive slant. Exaggerations about the impact of "anchor babies" or the devastating cost of foreign aid - 1 percent of the federal budget - continue to run rampant in a zone where factual accuracy is recommended, but by no means necessary.
In a special affront to University students and alumni, Michele Bachmann quoted Thomas Jefferson in a September debate to support her argument that separation between church and state is a "myth." Ironically enough, FactCheck.org says she cites the very 1802 letter in which Jefferson lauds the First Amendment as putting "a wall of separation between Church & State." Such rhetoric is beyond parody.
So if the substance is not important, what is? Most commentary on the debates seems to stress who "appears" the most presidential. Considering that electoral success is the end goal of all who take the stage, that makes enough sense. Rationally speaking, now is not the time to attempt to sort out difficult questions of right and wrong, but to simply win.
The one exception to the norm seems to be Ron Paul. Putting aside politics for a moment, it is hard not to feel sorry for the man during debates. He is the only one consistently writing down what his opponents say so he can confront their ideas instead of reciting pre-packaged talking points designed to easily win over audiences. Pushing his late 70s, Paul shows how an antiquated and un-sexy discussion of serious constitutional questions looks compared to glimmering, media-friendly platitudes.
Possibly the saddest moment from the GOP debates came on Sept. 12 when Paul and Rick Santorum addressed one another when disccusing the War on Terror. Santorum said Paul's website "basically blamed" the United States for the 9/11 terror attacks before repeating the old line that terrorists hate us for our freedoms, an assertion completely disconnected from reality. After Santorum received applause, Paul attempted to explain why Islamic terrorists have encouraged violence against the United States: As terrorist leaders have written themselves, it has been because of military bases in the Middle East, support for Israel and perceived mistreatment of Palestinians. Yet Paul's analysis met only with heavy boos.
Let this be a lesson to all you future GOP contenders: Do not try to convey an intellectually honest message, especially one that goes against your base's preconceived notions. Play politics as usual and tell the masses exactly what they want to hear for maximum results. Naturally, the same applies for Democrats, and there is little reason to expect that argumentative substance will make a surprise comeback when risk-averse President Obama is facing off with his still-unknown Republican challenger.
Mary Beard, a writer for the British newspaper The Guardian, wrote a reflection last February on oratory following the stunning success of the 2010 film "The King's Speech." She noted that even in the 2nd century, Romans asked why the quality of their oratory was in decline. The Roman historian Tacitus suggested that the Empire's waning rhetorical quality was related to the fact that one-man rule meant there were no real issues to be discussed and debated.
What has caused the removal of substance from political debate in our modern era? The dominating effect of corporate money? Elections that have grown to resemble advertising campaigns for two highly similar products? From ideological extremism, or excessive moderation? Perhaps it is a little of all of these. Regardless of the cause, it seems impossible to argue that oratory strongly tied to a healthy democratic tradition flourishes today.
As Republicans have shown, persuasion and substantive debate have taken a backseat to the massive pubic relations and advertisement blitzes which accompany the elections of our time. It does not seem like too much of a stretch to imagine we would be better off if our priorities were rearranged. Meaningful democracy brings meaningful debate. Let us aim for both.
Sam Carrigan's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at s.carrigan@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days 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 | April 25, 2024Instead 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.
