Sultan Knish
The debate, like the electoral college, is an outmoded institution
dating back to another time when candidates for political office were
capable of expressing ideas that could not be compressed into a
misleading five word slogan.
The modern political debate is not a test of ideas, but of candidates.
HD cameras and screens make it possible for us to see every wince and
grimace, and to measure how slowly a candidate responds. The debate is
not won by intelligence, but by a combination of populist empathy and
low zingers. Those zingers are usually all we remember from past debates
because the age of the public and politician that could participate in
the marathon Lincoln Douglas debates is long over and everyone knows it.
The debates are rarely about a public interested in weighing and
measuring ideas, but a reality show where the candidate who has one bad
moment becomes fodder for the late night jokes of the next day. And if
the candidates and the public are sub-par, the moderators are even worse
appearing only to promote one candidate and one agenda.
It's not that we don't have a culture of ideas because the public is
stupid, though a key section of the electorate certainly wouldn't
qualify to vote under any poll test, but because our politics are
stupid. Our politics are relentlessly short term, our policies extend to
the next month and our awareness barely lasts that long.
The Lincoln Douglas debates appealed to a country that thought long
term, that measured politicians the way that investors measure a
prospectus. Our current debates appeal to a country where people get
incoherently frustrated when their signal drops and who don't watch TV
anymore because it's easier to catch the highlights tomorrow. These are
the types of people who will accept the robbing of their retirement
accounts so the government can go on making them feel good about
themselves.
The deficit has reached a catastrophic number, social security has been
running a deficit since 2010 and we're slicing the military to pieces to
pay for foreign aid to Afghanistan. None of this should be stomached by
an electorate capable of doing the math, but much of the electorate
can't do the math and a bigger piece of it doesn't want to.
Obama achieved a clean break with the reality-based politics of the past
by just making things up all the time, claims, laws and budgets. What
he figured out is what most politicians have suspected but never dared
act on, that a sizable percent of the public can tell apart individual
lies, but are unable to do so when everything that politician says is a
complete lie.
By every measure and standard, he has failed in all his commitments. The
economy is a disaster, the war in Afghanistan is toast, the jobs aren't
coming, the growth isn't here and Al Qaeda is surging in North Africa.
Past politicians would have struggled, made promises and assured the
country that they would do better. Such dishonest honesty is not for
Obama. The Prince of Chicago doesn't concede that there are any problems
and the media corps gathers around to back him up with clamorous fact
checks and stories that have nothing to do with the real world.
How do you debate a compulsive liar while trying to convince voters who
already tuned out during the introductory remarks and are planning to
wait and see what the media and SNL tells them are the best parts of the
debate? It's a challenge and it's also the new politics where your goal
is to convince unfit voters who can't figure out how to get a Voter ID
that you are fit for the job.
Among the unfit voters are a sizable percent of those who do not
understand the issues or care about the issues. All they want to do is
vote for the candidate that everyone else is voting for. But they are
dwarfed by special interest voters who understand only those issues
immediately relevant to them. They don't care about the national
interest, about the national economy or national security, what they
want to know are the immediate benefits that will come to them one way
or another.
The world could end tomorrow and they would take it as a personal
slight, rather than a global tragedy. They have been trained to have a
chip on one shoulder and a hand thrust out from the other. They don't
want to hear anything about America, they want to hear only about
themselves. They will pay attention only far enough to determine which
politician is pandering hardest to them. And they will almost always
vote leftward, not because the left represents their interests, but
because their egos never let them explore their interests past the
pandering.
Any political campaign today is short circuited by group interests. Like
a broken marriage the whole thing shamelessly dissolves into a custody
battle over idiot voters with both embittered parents promising the brat
that they will buy him more stuff so long as he denounces the other
one. They lie of course, but the brat never learns that no matter how
many times they promise him a 4x4 and leave him with a matchbox car and a
huge bill.
And so this brings us to Campaign 2012 with Daddy Romney trying to be
non-threatening and Mommy Obama screaming that he's a selfish bastard
who will never buy them all the right toys. Ideas swiftly give way to
sentimentality with pain-feeling empathy sessions and more hard luck
tales than a convention of inspirational speakers could gin up. Everyone
quotes numbers and those numbers just become more counters in an unreal
online debate where one side just makes things up and the other side
tries to show that it's operating in a completely unreal universe.
The debate, like most reality show showdowns, will come down to editing
room shenanigans and the pre-existing narrative that the producers are
determined to push regardless of the results. The viewers who have yet
to decide are not there for answers, they are there to see who has the
best catchphrases and who flinches or says something dumb. They are
there to be entertained.
The perverse thing about the internet is that not only are people not
better informed than they were in 1858, but they actually know much less
than their great-great-grandparents did. And that isn't about to
change. What new media has done is helped create a stalemate, but it
hasn't broken the perversion that is modern journalism, all it has done
is made it uneasy and kept it from claiming all the mental territory
that it has attempted to occupy. But it has done this at a cost of
generating more noise to drown out the signal. To beat the media, it has
become like the media, and the media has become like it. In five years
there will hardly be any difference between them as they tumble into a
volcano with a death grip around each other's pageviews.
So we bring on the debate between Obama, the media and Romney. Obama and
the media will discourse on hope, dreams and racism. Romney will
occasionally try to mention the economy. The public, which despite
seventy trillion news articles that describe Romney lagging in the
polls, will nod along, but that portion of it which is both capable of
voting and chewing gum at the same time, and isn't dependent on the
government dollar, will quietly continue to shift their support to him.
Obama and Romney will mention manufacturing, the progress that women
have made, Israel, their wives, their children, the troops overseas, the
economic recovery and their hopes for the future. Mostly they will be
enacting a ritual, at the end of which the media will declare Obama the
winner and the swing voters will remain vaguely undecided. A few people
will still remember when the ritual had substance, when conventions were
as heavily contested as ideas, and candidates expressed ideas that
weren't narrowly targeted to be inoffensive and win over wavering
voters. Millions more will tune in to next week's Saturday Night Live to
find out what they should think about the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment