OPINION & EDITORIAL
Bush, Kerry debate debating
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Zach Stern:
- Conservative betrayal (April 14, 2005)
- Freedom and responsibility (May 5, 2005)
- For everything else, there's bankruptcy (March 17, 2005)
- The revolution continues (March 3, 2005)
- Voter apathy with reason (February 17, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Debates full of 'strategory' (September 27, 2004)
- The debate that never was (December 3, 2001)
- Verstandig in fantasy land (October 15, 2004)
- In a show devoid of moving rhetoric, Bush performs best (October 4, 2004)
- Horowitz visit proves UW's free-speech maturity (December 11, 2001)
by Zach Stern
Thursday, September 23, 2004
The debate and discussion of issues is not an inherently conspicuous concept. Indeed, one could make the claim that for much of history, humanity has distinctly avoided debate and resorted to the use of force and coercion to enact one’s will upon the world. With the advent of television, the ability of individuals to do intellectual battle on a massive scale is unlike ever before, and it has had undeniable effects upon the course of our nation. Moreover, this truism extends beyond simply the formal, scheduled debates of the political season, but also to every public speech or statement that either candidate makes or advertisements they produce.
This election year, however, is as everyone loves to repeat ad nauseum: the most important ever. Thus, it would follow that the debates themselves and the overall discussion in this cycle ought to be just as important and treated as such. And, just as much has been throughout the past few years, things haven’t been going as well as one might have hoped.
Both the Bush and Kerry campaigns have finally agreed to the debate schedule set forth by the Commission on Presidential Debates after a long dialogue (and, in the interest of being honest, a bit of stonewalling on the part of the Bush campaign). Except for, according to the New York Times, “their unusual request that [the Commission] sign … the 32-page agreement detailing parameters for the debates.”
Now, it should not be surprising to anyone that the two campaigns want to have particular rules for the debates. Each side clearly wants to stack the cards in its favor: how many questions, which format, etc. That’s not the issue. What is, however, is how both campaigns have been focusing far too much on debating the debate in a more general sense rather than truly discussing the issues that deserve consideration.
For far too long we have been forced to deal with not merely mudslinging — this much is to be expected given the current level of hostilities — but also discussion of how one candidate or the other is being more negative. Who is being rude or conniving is the shape of political discourse in this country, rather than who is actually correct. Instead of really talking about Iraq, we talk about which candidate’s supporters produced which negative advertisements, and how closely connected they were to the campaigns. Instead of really talking about the economy, we talk about which candidate possesses the superior military record from almost 40 years ago and how one side or the other ought not to disparage their opponent. Any semblance of substantive discourse has vanished only to be replaced by the foul specter of political spin built upon a foundation of willful neglect among much of the electorate.
If this is indeed the most historic election of our time and there is such disagreement within our own borders as to what is the correct path to take, wouldn’t it be logical for the campaigns to at least appear like they are taking this great divide seriously? The discussion over the format of the formal debates is common in American presidential politics. The fact that this discussion parallels that of the rest of their campaigns is what is so shocking in such an important period of history.
Sadly, such behavior isn’t too surprising. Controversy makes news, and candidates want the spotlight on them as much as possible. Electioneering has truly become focused into a science, manipulating rhetoric (traditional verbal persuasion) and heresthetic (setting the stage for victory) into electoral triumph. Candidates do not have to take positions; they simply must appear as though they do. Calling politics a game is not simply trendy — it’s a fact.
The results of such campaign gaming is obvious: Bush tries to focus the nation’s attention on his strongest issue (the war on terror) but gives few specifics, and Kerry tries not to focus his campaign on anything. Kerry has thus far had little incentive to do so — any position on controversial issues he takes too strongly one way or the other will inevitably alienate portions of his base, so why not simply try to embrace the “anybody but Bush” crowd and try not to look bad?
Ultimately, the voters face an election year consisting of debate that only scratches the surface of discussing real issues and providing real solutions. The current state of politics in America is on one hand absurd, but on the other to be expected. Until the American people demand otherwise, straight-talk on the issues is a pipedream. Spin-masters will continue to weave their web of nonsense around the American political campaign, creating controversy to create interest. While we certainly ought to take partial blame for these conditions ourselves, we ought to expect better from our leaders. We can either accept debates about the debates or reject it. Our fate may depend upon our willingness to take a stand.
Zach Stern (zstern@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in political science.
Anonymous (September 24, 2004 @ 5:39pm):
Mr. Stern fades into ambiguity in offering a way out of the woods from our current state of political discourse in this country. If the American people want better government, all they need to do is consistently vote the incumbents out of office. Ending many political careers is a sure way to get the attention of career politicians. First, you have to get their attention, then you have to know what you want.
