Posted by
Always To The Right on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 1:28:40 PM
The consensus after last night’s debate, in both the blogosphere and
the commentariat, formed quickly and rather inexplicably that it failed
because it was too dull. Most people I see blamed Tom Brokaw for not
spicing it up, and both candidates for putting most of the people
watching it to sleep. Ironically, this comes from the same people who
complain about the lack of substance and policy and the plethora of
sound-bite gotchas in most political debates.
Last night’s debate shows what we get when both candidates focus on
policy and (mostly) avoid sound bites and gotchas. It was a debate,
not the political equivalent of a Roman forum or Match Game with
slightly less salacious questions. Both candidates did their best to
lay out their policy preferences and their records, and while John
McCain was more aggressive about contrasting himself with Barack Obama
on those, both did so mainly by sticking to policies and records.
Real debates don’t make good public spectacles. High
school debates don’t get held at stadiums or gymnasiums on Friday
nights in front of massive crowds. The bands do not conduct halftime
shows and cheerleaders do not appear, unless coincidentally a
cheerleader is a member of the debate squad. There is a good reason
for this. Real debates tend to be dull to everyone except the people
involved, or those very interested in the topic under discussion.
Everyone complains when the candidates don’t provide substantive
discussion of policy, but it appears that the truth is that very few
people in the media are interested in a substantive debate. They need
headlines and hooks, and find an actual debate on substance a waste of
their time. The truth is that they don’t want a debate, because a real debate does nothing much more than compare position papers and well-established policy. . . .
. . . Better yet, maybe some in the media will think about their reaction and
realize what a waste of time most of these presidential debates are,
and how they usually reward glibness and appearance while penalizing
substance and detail. . . .