Cogito Ergo Non Serviam
Please Cancel the Debate
Next week, the nation is threatened with a joint press conference with Kamala Harris and Donald Trump as participants. It is not a debate no matter how the campaigns and media describe it. It will be an event that will generate a lot of heat and absolutely no light. It will coarsen the already coarse political dialogue in the US. Each side is hoping to use the affair to create problems for the other. That can be achieved without canceling the prime-time game shows on ABC that would prove to be intellectually more stimulating that listening to either candidate in that kind of format. Still, one presumes that reason will not prevail, and the damned thing will happen.
At the moment, there is a dispute between the two camps about whether the microphones will be muted during the time a candidate is not speaking. In the first debate that Joe Biden lost, they were. The Harris camp has said that they would like that changed. The Trump campaign has resisted that, but yesterday, the candidate himself said he did not care either way. The Harris team immediately declared the matter settled. This was clever because now they have what they want and the Trump campaign cannot go back on the words of Mr. Trump.
Both sides believe they need this debate to win the presidency. The Trump people have not been able to figure out how to deal with the sudden change of candidates on the Democratic side. The debate would provide such an opportunity.
Tangentially, it is interesting to note that the campaign was hit with a crisis when the change happened, and the Trumpists have no response yet. In a foreign crisis, that would be devastating.
On the Harris side, they think the debate will provide them with gaffs, blunders and foolishness that will help them create ads and social media destroying Mr. Trump. The smart money is on him doing exactly what his opponents want, but the fact is that fans of Mr. Trump will not care. Support for Harris does not depend on her winning the debate. Indeed, the whole point of their campaign is to engage the few persuadable voters out there. There are so few of them that the time and effort spent on the debate would be better spent building the Get-Out-the-Vote efforts to ensure that those who are decided actually cast a ballot. There is a difference between registered voters, likely voters and actual voters.
The history of the presidential debates is a sorry one. In the first televised debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, the result was a draw. Those listening on radio thought Nixon won, while those watching on TV leaned toward JFK. Put differently, it did not make very much difference because it was a draw.
In 1960, though, there was a more rational and dignified political discussion than there is today. The candidates were faced with reporters and networks that were bound by the Fairness Doctrine, and there were but 3 networks. Those early debates had greater impact because there were fewer media events than today. TikTok has changed that. Now, the debate will only serve to engage in emotions of a negative variety.
At a different level, the debate concept has contributed to the dysfunctionality of the American system. The skills needed to be effective as the president are not the same as those needed to win an election. Showing off in a debate is hardly a presidential core skill. Cutting deals and leveraging power are. Communication has a role to play in that, but the kind of communication a debate provides has an ridiculously bad signal-to-noise ratio.
Improve the presidency. End the "debates."
© Copyright 2024 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.
|
|
|
