OPINION & EDITORIAL
Political debates lacking in debate
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Debates full of 'strategory' (September 27, 2004)
- The sacking of debates (October 7, 2004)
- More stale rhetoric in Dems 'debate' (May 2, 2007)
- Bush, Kerry debate debating (September 23, 2004)
- Vote Doyle for governor (November 2, 2006)
by Letters to the Editor
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Last Friday I sat down and fulfilled my duty as a citizen by watching the last of Doyle and Green's gubernatorial debates, and many things caught my attention (besides which candidate had the best answers and won my vote), mainly that some interesting questions were asked.
Two in particular caught my ear. One man asked for a policy for equalizing racial disparities in education and achievement and one woman asked for change in how crimes were dealt with to solve the state's incarceration problem. These two stuck out to me because A) the two candidates didn't really seem to understand the questions, and B) they illustrated the problem with American political debate on TV.
Neither politician seemed to grasp the real question hidden between the lines of what the citizen was saying, or provide the answers that they wanted. The former question was from an educated high school teacher and was really asking what the candidates were going to do to solve socio-economic problems that affected black teenagers and caused the racial achievement gap. Doyle talked about 4-year-old kindergarten and breakfast instead. Green talked about providing jobs through leadership, which isn't actually real policy (a.k.a. plans) if you think about it.
The latter question seemed to me (at least by how it was worded) to be asking the candidates to say no to the country's excessive drug laws that send far too many people to prison for too long for insignificant stuff — which really will never be stopped because people are people and do shit when they're bored. Both candidates instead focused on how they were going to enforce said laws harshly, while also addressing the plight of Wisconsinites in prison out of state — something not even hint at and not seemingly particularly relevant. Prison sucks everywhere in this country.
However, these two questions illustrate two limiting aspects of the forum. They are way too short; politicians don't have time to really think and address the true questions or provide appropriate in-depth answers to complicated ones. They also illustrate that there are certain lines that politicians aren't willing to cross under the circumstances (e.g. saying they support easing drug laws and risking being called soft on crime). No one can really discuss and present an effective policy to solve the socio-economic problems that have affected black communities for centuries in ninety seconds. Public officials dodge queries questioning "common knowledge" like the plague due to their need to be reelected and the horrifying effectiveness of sound bites — not sound arguments — to prevent just that.
It is no wonder that people keep commenting that they don't learn anything from such debates under the circumstances, like with the Bush-Kerry debates of 2004. Unless we get back to the days of hours long debates and allow politicians to focus less on opponent's attacks and more on the intricacies of the question, it is up to society is to discuss and answer the really hard questions and then elect the right person.
John Doble doble@wisc.edu
