Debased Debates

If the U.S. really cared about its democracy it would get rid of presidential debates. Or at the very least, televised debates. And for only two reasons:

1. Televised debates are only about style, not substance. Ever since the first televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy in 1960, it has become commonplace to declare the “winner” to be the candidate who comes across better on TV (facial expressions, gestures, body language). But for those who only listen to the debate on radio, it’s usually the other candidate who comes across as the “winner” (control of facts and ideas). The medium is the message.

2. The TV networks – and especially the cable networks – hype the importance of the debates in order to promote their coverage (and advertising dollars), and in so doing skew the campaign to the “game of the week.” This week’s debate is the most important event of the campaign. Until it’s over, and then next week’s debate becomes the most important. Until it’s over . . . and so on. How quickly we forget those “most important” primary debates back in the spring, not to mention the “most important” conventions (now TV shows) in the summer.

Our democracy would be much better served if we went back to pre-television campaigns. Or better yet, further back to when candidates didn’t campaign at all. Maybe we could judge candidates on what they’ve done, written, and said rather than how they perform.