Opinion

The sacking of debates

After closely watching last week’s presidential debate between George Bush and John Kerry, I was left not with a feeling of who is going to win or who people should vote for, but with the nagging feeling that I had just been brainwashed in a deliberate act of repetitive propagating. Both the questions and the candidates’ arguments were painfully scripted; each failed to completely answer every question, choosing instead to reiterate key points. Mostly, this entailed criticizing each other’s policies instead of clearly defining their own, transforming the potentially exciting Thursday night into an uneventful bore.

Presidential debates today have become speeches instead of arguments, scripted words of preparation as opposed to impromptu thoughts and passionate statements. They are nothing more than 90-minute commercials, creations of political artists and spin-doctors rather than the keen intellect and sharp articulacy of the candidates. Not only does this make presidential debates dull to watch, it renders candidates’ statements irrelevant. The intent of debates is definitive polarization and personal revelation; they are supposed to provide a unique entertainment.

So what, I ask you, has happened to debates?

It used to be such an art. Debating was a true test of sharp intellect and quick reaction, vast inner knowledge and passionate etiquette. Presidential debates especially were once amusing, not just informative; the candidates not only had to explain their stances on issues, they had to do so in a pure, unscripted way that revealed whether their character qualified them to be an adequate representative of the people.

But, as evidenced by last Thursday’s events, the art of the debate has been raped and pillaged, thrown into a sea of meaningless drabble and watered down to the extent of a distasteful beverage that fails to satisfy anyone’s thirst. A specific flavor is severely lacking in the debates of today, especially in presidential races. They should take after more loosely planned yet modestly organized debates as the one that took place last Monday night between Congressional candidates Tammy Baldwin and Dave Magnum.

Although both Magnum and Baldwin had key points they were determined to reiterate despite the question topics, the debate was chaotic enough to force both candidates to actually think on a whim and reiterate their beliefs, ideals, and plans for the future. Despite the lack of rebuttal opportunities, the pureness of the debate allowed Baldwin to use her natural eloquence to state her case accordingly, while Magnum’s lack of experience, knowledge, and clear vision was exposed.

Magnum was eager to agree with his opponent and insult her credibility, but he was unwilling to lay out the basis of his candidacy. Magnum stated that changes needed to be made, but he failed to identify what changes would be made if he were elected. Not once did he come up with a clear concise plan. Not once did he name a certain bill or bill proposal that he would support or introduce to make all the changes he says are so necessary. His arguments and outlines proved to be mostly irrelevant; the night was highlighted when Magnum was asked about education and, in an attempt to attest to the rise in technology, responded with the dumbfounding question: “Why do you think more Asians are going to M.I.T.?” On more than one occasion, he proved he was uneducated in many of the current issues and debated bills that sit in Congress, having to yield to Representative Baldwin’s plans to add to the sixty-four million dollars in federal funds she has already brought to Wisconsin.

We need less scripted, more active debates not in order to display the stupidity of candidates (though W would be a riot if he actually had to think on his feet) but to find out who truly has a plan and what it is. What the Baldwin/Magnum debate showed that is helpful to voters is not that Magnum is dull-witted or buys into racial stereotypes. Its importance was that it proved the Republican candidate not only has no experience that would qualify him to be an effective legislator, but that he lacks foresight and political familiarity of any kind.

So let us get back to debating the way it was, when candidates were forced to think on a whim, allowing their individuality and issue stances to be revealed to potential voters. This is the only way that people can decide who to vote for or what they’re voting for. The debate between Baldwin and Magnum was still lacking, but it at least provided some insight and entertainment. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about last Thursday night. In the chaotic world of political theater, presidential debates have become carefully scripted dramas, when they should be informative impromptu comedies.

Adam Lichtenheld (lichtenheld@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in political science and international studies.