|
Not a Debate
|
1 Ocotober 2004
|
Bush and Kerry Hold Join Press Conference
A debate is a formal event, an exercise in rhetoric in the classical Greek sense of the work, wherein two view points are argued out in a rational discussion involving cross-examination by the parties involved. By any reasonable measure, what President Bush and Senator Kerry put the world through last night was not a debate. The two held a joint press conference, and they only fact they appeared to hold in common was that they were both in Florida at the time. This stage-managed nonsense sums up what the shell of democracy in America has become – an attempt to avoid a “mistake” that will disqualify one for office.
At fault is the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. A common conspiracy between the Democrats and the Republicans, the commission arranged the debates as it has done for the last few elections (the debates were in better hands under the non-partisan but quite patriotic League of Women Voters). The commission and the campaigns crafted a 32-page agreement on how the debates will be handled, and as Christopher Buckley observed, nations have come into being with less paperwork. Were the intent not to stage-manage the event, the only rule would be when to end.
Yet many said a large group of voters, enough to tip the balance to either man, would make up their minds based on the “debates.” One wonders where these people have been for the last three years and nine months? The font page of the Wall Street Journal yesterday identified them: “They tend to be less educated, with lower incomes than the population as a whole, pollsters say. They’re usually younger and female.” Thus far, it is a group of no particular distinction either positively or negatively. But then, “They pay less attention to the news and are more likely to be moved by ads, shifting their leanings depending on the last spot they saw.”
This is what Sir Winston Churchill meant when he said that democracy was the worst system of government ever invented except for all the others. The most important election since at least 1968, possibly since 1940, may well be determined by people who haven’t done the hard business of educating themselves on the issues and the candidates. “Moved by ads”? One would laugh if the urge to cry were not so severe.
And so foreign policy was “debated” by two men who both studied debate at Yale, and there was not much opportunity for them to show anything of their talents. Of course, the idea wasn’t to prove a point about issues; it was to sway at an emotional level a handful of disengaged semi-citizens to cancel out the votes of the truly thoughtful and engaged citizens regardless of ideology.
So for all of that, who won? The question itself is ludicrous. One cannot win a press conference.
© Copyright 2004 by
The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without
written consent.
Home