March 15, 2004
Bush/Kerry = Lincoln/Douglas?
Recently John Kerry challenged George W. Bush to a series of monthly debates. He made this challenge in Quincy, Illinois with the goal of recalling the famous Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas debates of 1858. While I think its an important civic exercise to have the sort of televised debates that we have become accustomed to in the TV era, this reference to the Lincoln-Douglas debates illustrates exactly why presidential debates today are rather meaningless in terms of real engagement of the issues.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates were grand affairs with a complicated discussion of the issues of slavery, popular sovereignty and the proper principles of American government (although, admittedly, there was about one and a half debates were Lincoln and Douglas argued about corruption and the selection of the Illinois Senator several years earlier- so even these great statemen were not above mud-slinging politics). Each man would give an hour long speech followed by an hour long rebuttal and would then the first speaker would be given another 30 minutes for a rejoinder. Today the “debates” are sound-bite fests, with those who are running for president of the most powerful country in the world speaking for only 1 and a half minutes on issues about which books can be written. The contrast is staggering.
While I hope Bush agrees to these debates with Kerry, nothing of substance will come of them- as nothing of substance has really come from any general election debate that I can remember. Modern debates are not remember for great rhetorical flourishes like when Lincoln pointed out to Douglas that “there could not be a right to do a wrong” and thus explained why slavery was not a legitimate option for even the majority of the people to make- modern debates are remembered when Reagan mocked Carter with “there you go again” or that Richard Nixon looked pasty on TV in 1960. While in 1858 the voters had no better entertainment than to see two great orators go at it, today, most Americans do not care to spend hours seeing politicians really delve into the issues- they decide who they will vote for by sound bites, news clips and quick-hitting adds (see the rise and fall of Howard Dean).
I am not criticizing Americans- many of them have busy lives and have limited time for enjoyment of their free time- if they do not share my love for intellectual debate, I cannot blame fault them. We get the kind of democracy we want and the American people do not want the sort of democracy that involves long speeches, complicated rebuttals and serious engagement of the issues. They want “Kerry will give the country to the terrorists” or “Bush hates the poor people and wants to give the country to the rich people”. So that is the kind of debate we will get and I wish John Kerry would not try to ahistorically import the idea that these proposed monthly debates will bare any resemblance to the great 1858 debates between Lincoln and Douglas.
(Historical Note: the Lincoln-Douglas debates were actually during a campaign for the Illinois state Senate in 1858. In 1860, there was no such debate because tradition dictated that presidential candidates be “above” politics and their supporters would give their stump speeches as the Candidates sat at home. Douglas actually broke this tradition in 1860 and campaign for himself, promising that his presidency election was the only way to keep the union united. Lincoln followed tradition and sat at home. The rest is history.)
> Today the “debates” are sound-bite fests, with
> those who are running for president of the most
> powerful country in the world speaking for only
> 1 and a half minutes
Well don’t hold your breath waiting for George Bush to seek a change in that trend!
I’d love to see Bush agree to a debate where he was obliged to talk off the cuff for over five minutes at a time. You gotta admit, it would be hilarious.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 15, 2004 09:00 PMThough a Republican, I’d love to see Bush take Kerry up on it, even though it might be bad politics as an incumbent to share your spotlight with a challenger to that degree. As it is, we’re just going to have yet another pre-packaged debate via TV ads. I usually find these ads to be an insult to our intelligence (even the ones for candidates I strongly support).
On the other hand, I don’t think Bush vs. Kerry would exactly be Lincoln-Douglas—it would be prettry dreary to watch them debate. They’re both terrible rhetoricians and mediocre public speakers—Bush gets tongue tied easily, repeats himself, falls into cliches, almost seems to fall asleep mid-sentence, puts stresses on inappropriate words. Kerry has this fake gravity about him, puffs himself into a pompous posture that’s sharply undercut by the flatness and dullness of his speech. He contradicts himself incessantly, gets mired in equivications, drones on for ten minutes about nothing as though drunk on the sound of his own voice. Well, better give us the commercials.
Posted by: Martin at March 15, 2004 11:49 PMMaybe if the candidates had to give these sorts of complicated rhetorical arguments during an election campaign guys like Bush and Kerry wouldnt have a chance at the presidency, and we could get some more serious, intelligent people who go for the presidency. Right now, it seems like the smartest people in the whitehouse are behind the scenes, as would be the case if Kerry became president- I think thats pretty sad.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 16, 2004 12:18 AMGreat look into the historical debates. Thanks!
Posted by: Anthony at March 16, 2004 01:24 AMA great point of view on modern debates. I blame both the people and the candidates for pandering and allowing their candidates to pander to them. I’d like to see the qualifications of being a good-er (heh) speaker and intellectual statesman brought back to the U.S. Presidency.
Posted by: Beau Wade at March 16, 2004 10:47 AMMisha, we have an issue we agree upon. Debates would be Bush’s to lose. Kerry will gain status and immense publicity just by showing up. Bush on the other hand must deftly handle Kerry’s critiques and that is very unlikely to turn out well for Bush. Therefore, I believe there will be no debates save for one or two just before the elections, and then, the ground rules for them will insulate the President from himself thus resulting in no debate at all.
Posted by: David R Remer at March 16, 2004 01:01 PMBush says that Kerry should end the debates with himself before Bush will debate him. Why Bush would not want to take the opportunity to reveal and skewer those alleged flip-flops is the question. Perhaps Bush’s inability to speak off the cuff without sounding like an idiot is to blame.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2004 01:34 PMI suspect that most people watching presidential debates in the modern age have already made up their minds to a degree that nothing could influence them to change their votes. The rest of the population, the so called undecideds, are likely to be watching reruns on Nickelodeon. For the few who haven’t made up their minds—not the most politically engaged types even if they eventually vote—the debate becomes an occasion to judge candidates based on knee-jerk evaluations of general likeability.
These “cosmetic voters” can actually swing an election—nothing any of us should be thrilled about. In fact, I recently saw a study which claims that the more affable and photogenic-candidate has won every presidential election since the beginning of the television age. If true, this means that the Democrats have made a serious blunder in ignoring Edwards in favor of old sourpuss Kerry.
Martin:
“If true, this means that the Democrats have made a serious blunder in ignoring Edwards in favor of old sourpuss Kerry.”
I couldn’t agree more, I really don’t know what “Electability” means every Dem that would have voted for kerry would have voted for edwards, and then some. If getting elected is what the Dems want they should’ve picked the pretty boy.
Martin it feels good to agree with someone that has such an intellgent sounding name!
Cheers, martin. I believe Edwards may very well be president someday. Even I like him (though I disagree with about most everything—especially NAFTA), but if he can charm a committed Republican like me, I have no doubt he could can do wonders with others.
Posted by: Martin at March 18, 2004 12:06 AMDebates designed by, and agreed to, by the adversaries and their reps can be nothing of value. The idea for debates and such, within an intelligent system, can only be realized by one like that described in the novel, “The FECMA Conspiracy” by Burton S. H. Ridgeway.
The idea for defining “speech” is marvelous, and should be discussed by all interested in a better election process. This year, we are faced with an eight month horror, destined to be the most expensive in history. It should not be.
