Let's Have Real Presidential Debates & Less Stump Speech

[roxybeast]

I was on my high school and college debate teams. In high school, we either won state or were in the semi-finals. In college, my debate partner and I won junior nationals. I remember that debate. While I forget, 20 years later, what the exact topic was, I remember that our opponents' plan ultimately suggested that the solution to the problem proposed, and the only way to avoid a world-ending nuclear war with Russia, was for America to submit to Russian will and become communists. They had gathered up 25 or more quotes from obscure likely discredited "experts" that they pasted on their index cards which explained how this scenario would unfold. Each step in their chain of logic, while supported by some "expert" quote, moved farther away from the real topic of the debate until finally the world exploded and everybody died unless we all turned Red. The topics were always something benign like should federal law be changed to require a balanced budget, but the result of every team's case was always the same, nuclear holocaust and the end of the human race.

In the finals, for whatever reason, we didn't have any "expert" cards addressed to the solution of all of us becoming Red communists. As the last speaker, I simply used logic to recount history, valor, honor, and the far more likely public outrage, chaos, riots, violence, massive bloodshed and loss of life, and revolution that would result from surrender to the Russians. The American perspective of "Better Dead than Red." I explained how their so-called experts were not credible, taken out of context, and that their leaps in logic were so large and unreasonable as to simply not be credible. We won on a 2-1 split decision. I still wonder about that third judge.

My point here is that a debate involves not only giving canned answers, but the lost art of actually listening to what comes out of your opponent's mouth and even adjusting your answers or strategy on the fly as necessary to address weaknesses or mistakes that your opponent makes. Real debates involve the use of reason and logic, not delivering canned stump speeches to reinforce your campaign advertising, or being so afraid of making any little mistake that might cost you votes, that you miss opportunities to use logic & reasoning as a path to victory.

In watching the first two Presidential debates, and particularly the one earlier this week, it is both obvious and aggravating that both Obama and McCain are simply sticking to their rehearsed stump speeches rather than directly answering the questions posed, or engaging in any meaningful dialogue or real debate about the issues.

Case in point: In this week's debate, at the end of one of his canned answers, McCain made the impromptu suggestion that future social security benefits would receive far less benefits than current recipients. Maybe about 1/2, I forget his exact words. When he said that, I nearly jumped out of my chair! But neither the moderator, Tom Brokaw, nor Obama, asked him to explain that statement. Obama failed to seize the opportunity to pounce on McCain's mistake and turn it around to garner a huge advantage on the issue of social security reform. It is predicted that over the next 10-20 years the social security fund will essentially exhaust its surplus and be unable to pay the full amount of all expected benefit claims as the baby-boomer generation retires. Obama failed to explain how his plan would NOT cut benefits, unlike McCain's, but instead would address the impending deficit by increasing revenues. While voters don't like taxes, they absolutely loathe having their personal retirement benefits cut. Obama blew a great moment. If nothing else, it was a giant lost opportunity to require each man to explain how they would actually go about solving this impending Social Security deficit problem that will certainly plague their & future administrations.

But we, the public, no longer expect more of our candidates. We don't demand more. We don't demand more out of the press to insist on direct meaningful responses rather than stump speeches. We don't insist that necessary follow-up questions be asked so that we can truly understand the issues and truly make an educated & informed decision. Instead, we rely on often misleading sound-bytes and attack ads that are designed more to generate fear and anger than to meaningfully and truthfully educate voters about the issues and the differences in the solutions proposed by each candidate. For example, Sarah Palin claims that Obama is consorting with terrorists and implying that he therefore must support the weather underground's terrorist plans and actions because William Ayers lives in his neighborhood and is on the board of an education organization where Obama was also on the board, DESPITE the fact that Obama has expressly repudiated and denounced the acts and ideology of the weather underground and any terrorist acts or plans made by Ayers. Notice how her attack, and McCain's ads, conveniently leave this "truth" out. We, the public, should insist that such a charge which questions the opponent's honor and loyalty to this country be overwhelming, irrefutable, and puts forward all true facts.

There was a time in America where truth mattered. When it was not ok to run political ads based on half-truths and intentional distortions. In 1964, Johnson prepared an attack ad against Goldwater trying to tie him to the Ku Klux Klan by including an endorsement of Goldwater from the head of the Alabama chapter of the Klan. However, Goldwater had expressly renounced the Klan and had repudiated the endorsement, and Johnson knew it. Johnson chose not to run the ad. My how far we've come as a society in our tolerance for intentional distortion of the truth about a political opponent. With gutteral vigor and fervor we buy into and repeat the misleading spin put forward by our candidate of choice, becoming angrier and more vehement in our dislike and distrust of the opponent and their supporters.

Perhaps the end of this phase of American history signaled by this historic economic collapse will also be a catalyst to signal an end these types of highly misleading and distorted political attacks as we come together as a country, as we must, to face the perils of our future. In choosing the person who will lead us through these perils, truth about their experience, history, plans, proposals, and the direction in which they intend to lead us is of the essence. As a society, we must vigorously insist on the truth, for all our futures depend on the wisdom of our collective choices; societies not guided by the truth, perish.

Peace,
Beth