Illinois Spared Gubernatorial Debates

Finley Peter Dunne, one of the first ever syndicated columnists, quipped from a Chicago bar-room around 100 years ago that “politics ain’t beanbag.” By that with apologies of Carl von Clausewitz, he meant that politics is war by other means – at least in Illinois, land of Abe Lincoln, Adlai Stevenson and a pair of Mayors Daley. Thanks to the inability of the Democrats and Republicans in that state to agree on a format and dates, there will not be another debate between their respective gubernatorial candidates this year. One hopes this idea spreads.

The televised debate is a recent phenomenon in American politics despite the ubiquitous belief that they matter in a campaign. Although the aforementioned Mr. Lincoln did debate a guy named Steven A. Douglas in a senate campaign, the first real debate for the public between presidential candidates was the Nixon-Kennedy series in 1960. After that, there were no debates for several years because it was an abuse of the public airwaves to deny other candidates participation. The FCC has since decided that it the duopoly of Republican and Democratic power in America is to be enshrined by any means necessary.

Unfortunately, these debates (presidential or otherwise) are rarely debates in the sense anyone familiar with the form would understand them. The Angelides-Schwarzenegger event last weekend in California was typical, a joint press conference rather than a true argument over a single point. A true debate would be “Resolved: The Bush administration has failed to make America safer from foreign attack.” A clearly defined point of argument is never part of TV debates, largely because American politics selects from a pool of marginally telegenic local celebs and not intellectuals. Or as one commentator in Britain said of his own country’s modern system “politics is show business for the ugly.”

So, the news that Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich and his Republican challenger Judy Baar Topinka couldn’t agree on how to debate is probably just as well. Indeed, there’s something funny about them not being able to agree on how to argue. The governor said, “For seven months, [there has been] nothing but delays, excuses, complaining and then refusing to accept our offers.” On the other side, Ms. Topinka said, “Frankly, I don’t think he ever wanted debates. That’s why he has been jerking this system around.... You can’t negotiate with someone who doesn’t keep his word.”

Of course, the voters in Illinois weren’t going to watch any debates anyway – TV viewership always drops when that “politics crap” is on. Instead, the traditional radio ads and mailings will have to suffice, and the folks from South Bend to Chicago won’t miss “Lost,” “Desperate Housewives” or “CSI.” Christopher Mooney, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Springfield, told the Chicago Tribune that a radio debate last week was so lacking that “the less of that sort of business, the better.” Indeed, if politicians can’t debate, don’t force them to do so. Rather like the talent portion of a beauty contest, appealing to reason isn’t part of a politician’s job, so why see if a candidate can do it?

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home