Debate season is over. It has been one to remember and/or an excuse to pull your brain out of your head and give it a good scrubbing. This board laughed with each other, while perhaps crying privately, at some of the more memorable turns of phrases we heard from both sides.
The sheer childishness of the presidential debates was palpable. All of us that spent any time in a schoolyard insult war likely felt some combination of recognition, amusement and disgust. Our state debates between candidates ranged from somewhat (Governor) to largely (U.S. Senate) more civil and policy oriented.
But civil policy discussion may not be the core of appeal. All the talking down and unpopularity of both major party presidential candidates this year oddly correlated to the highest TV ratings for presidential debates ever. CNN coverage before the third debate seemed to mirror the setup of ESPN’s College GameDay, blurring the line between politics and entertainment. Even in our state debates, personal attacks on candidates and their allies boiled up a fair amount.
We hear people make the claim that these debates should be high-minded, polite discussions on policy differences. With all due respect, that sounds numbingly boring. We say, bring on the gladiator circus and fight to the last breath.
To make a hard distinction between entertainment and politics, one needs to assume that their modes of operation and appeal do not share any common features. Yet sports, drama and politics share a crucial point of enjoyment: pleasure in seeing your chosen avatar triumph and others’ chosen avatar beaten, if not irreparably crushed; having your side win, and the other side lose. If, as Aristotle insisted, we are political animals, then we need to acknowledge the occasionally savage animal side of that formulation.
If one wants to find details on policy and feels that transparent messaging of policy goals are the most important thing about a candidate, it has never been easier to find these due to the ubiquity of candidate web pages on the internet. Candidates can give podcasts, videos or texts detailing their policy commitments. Debates for the most part are not, and we believe should not, be about orally reciting these positions. Most voters’ minds are largely made up before the debates. Therefore we watch not to find out who stands for what, but who can stand in the face of adversity and give an argumentative beating as well as take one.
We watch not necessarily for a win, but more for a potential fall or unforced error. Debates’ core function in our democracy consist of displaying mental and temperamental strength and weakness in a combative forum. Candidates tackle tough questions and attacks from their opponent, balancing rehearsed strategy and tactics with hostile and political instinct.
This of course is how animals in the real world of politics survive, once the poetry of campaigning must become the prose of governing. How one handles oneself before both scrutiny and adversity lies as a key feature of electability. If we wish to see political leaders’ ability to push through a hostile environment, the more brutal and entertaining the debates, the better.
