The Basic Fallacy Regarding The Importance Of Political Debates

Don’t worry, I’m not about to relitigate last night’s debate debacle, I already did that. But while FUX News personalities are gleefully advising whomever Trump’s 4th trophy wife is going to be to start measuring the Oval Office drapes, and sob sisters like MSNBC’s Katy Tur are gravely calling on Biden to step down for the sake of humanity after his bomb last night, the whole damn bunch of them are missing one simple, indisputable point.

None of it matters more than a bowl of piss Jack Daniels. Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher made the point on MSNBC last night, and former RNC Chair expanded on it this morning. Hisrorically speaking, there hasn’t been a Presidential debate that has measurably moved the popular opinion needle as to whom people vote for. And last night on MSNBC Lawrence O’Donnell gave a graphic tutorial as to why it doesn’t.

Here’s why. Because modern televised presidential debates are not a serious exercise in political discourse. What it is is a unique combination of a high school talent contest, and a beauty pageant. And the simple fact is that the very methodology of debates is set up to make it that way.

If you’ve watched more than one presidential debate, and wondered at the subject content free responses, then you’ve broken the code. Look, some people watch hockey games for the fights, and many people watch NASCAR races for the pile ups. And people interested in politics watch presidential debates for the Gotcha! and viral moments. Because that’s the way the system is purposely set up.

Let’s start with the candidates themselves. To be honest, the last time any of these ballot mice put any prep time into opening their mouths was in an elective Public Speaking 101 course in high school. Which they took hopefully as prep for the college debate team, which they tanked out of the 2nd day of practice. Politicians survive and thrive on friendly audiences and teleprompters, and teleprompters are forbidden in debates.

In many debates, the candidates may receive the general subject of the topics, but not the actual topics themselves, nor the actual questions. How do you effectively prepare to give intelligent responses on, say the economy, when you have no idea if they’re going to be asking about inflation, unemployment, job creation or the stock market? Also, most debates have a built in 2 minute rule for answers. How’d you like to handle this one?, Name 5 things you would do to negate global warming? in two minutes? Oh yeah, and no pocket crib cards either. And in any breaks, the candidate cannot be coached by his staff as to how he’s doing, or what to change.

So the whole thing is set up to be fact and content free. After all, this is television, brainless entertainment. If people want facts, they’ll read a newspaper or look the issue up on Google. What you end up with on stage is two candidates, each with a small arsenal of rehearsed zingers that they hope to be able to sneak in, like Reagan  with the age and my opponent’s youth and inexperience line against Walter Mondale, making a f*ck up that your opponent pounces on, or pouncing on a f*ck up that your opponent committed. Everything else may as well be cute fluffy kittens in black suits rolling around playing with balls of yarn.

And thus will it ever be. Because that’s how it’s set up to be, A WWE spectacle without the colorful leotards, and flying body slams. Because as Lawrence O’Donnell has repeatedly pointed out, including last night, no President in history has ever made a single national interest decision under the kind of rules used in debates. Real President’s have endless conferences with top qualified aides to get all the necessary information, then make a measured decision. At least we hope they do.

According to Lawrence O’Donnell, here’s what a presidential debate would look like if it was meant to be a substantive discourse on policy. The debate would last two to three hours instead of 90 minutes. each candidate would have access to as many aides as needed onstage, rotating through depending on the topic. Each candidate would have five minutes to formulate an answer with his team, and five minutes to give that response. The opponent would be given time with his team to craft a response.

Does that sound long, laborious, slow and boring? Keep this in mind, the network anchors would be free to discuss the progress while the candidates were huddled with their teams. And never forget this little golden nugget.

Every year, literally millions of people tune in to ESPN for like three days to watch the freakin’ NFL draft! Ever seen it? It’s a couple of sports pundits spending about 25 minutes earnestly discussing the wisdom of the previous team’s pick, along with the impact it will have, not only on the team, but on the picks of upcoming teams. Then there’s about 90 seconds of suspense while the next GM announces the team’s pick. Launder. Rinse. Repeat. And every year enough schmucks tune into this drivel to make the advertising revenue worth the time and effort to broadcast it.

I think that concerned, interested, tuned in citizens like you and I would gladly carve out the time to actually get to hear what the two candidates actually think about critical issues, and what they’d do about it. Just look at the audience ratings for the J6 Committee hearings for proof of that, and all of those went at least 2-3 hours long. But instead we allow ourselves to continue to be narcotized by 90 minutes of Stupid Pet Tricks. Because we refuse to stand together and demand something better from our networks and candidates. Shame on us.

I thank you for the privilege of your time.

Support the site with a subscription today and see no more ads!

Go Ad-free Now!