On debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates, and deleterious charades
Neil Postman published Amusing Ourselves To Death in 1985. He argued that culture was in the process of a great dumbing-down, with an emphasis on spectacle over substance through the emptiness of television. Who would have thought that we'd look back on 1985 and see a glory era of intellectualism, by comparison?
Tonight is the first presidential "debate" of the 2020 general election campaign. Note my use of sarcasm quotes. This will not be a debate by any coherent definition of the term. It never is, but the Euclidean distance between our empirical observation and the Platonic ideal of "debate" will never be greater than when Donald Trump is on stage.
Yet let's think about what a debate is, or even a "debate," given what the term means as the rules and spectacle are arranged by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Does a candidate's ability to perform on that stage have anything to do with that candidate's ability to perform the job of president? No.
An election, let's remember, is a job interview. Literally. An election is a hiring mechanism. Hey! I wrote a book about this! Hiring And Firing Public Officials: Rethinking the Purpose of Elections (Oxford University Press, 2011).
When is a president ever required to get on a debate stage and do that debatin' thing? Never. Making that part of the job interview is like hiring an investment banker and, amid the interview process, handing a job applicant a violin and saying, "play me the Brandenburg Concertos. Go."
Yes, debates are stupid and pointless, and they should be canceled. Permanently. Hey! Here's me, advocating cancel culture! Cancel all presidential debates! Forever! They are stupid and pointless.
But "stupid and pointless" is just a baseline. There is such a thing as worse than stupid and pointless.
And here's a little anecdote. The first debate is happening spittin' distance from my life 'n livelihood, and given that, I was one of the people asked to contribute to apropaganda marketing video thingamajig about the election and debates for the Commission.
The Commission, apparently, was unhappy with lots of stuff, viewing it as insufficiently "neutral," according to the marketing person who recorded my little spot. So instead of anything substantive, I was asked a banal question that I am asked with numbing frequency because, like an insipid pop tune, it won't offend anyone, which is more important than the fact that it lacks merit.
"Ohio [Peanuts adult "wah wah"] 'bellwether' [Peanuts adult "wah wah"]." You can fill in the rest of the wah wahs, right?
I'm scheduled to give another of those interviews today. I think I need to turn my answer into a Peanuts wah wah. I know I sound that way to my students quite frequently anyway.
So as an aside, here's my new stock answer. Stop asking about "bellwether" states. If you are thinking about elections in terms of a "bellwether" state, you are looking at elections the wrong way. Whichever candidate wins Ohio tends to win the election, but it is also true that whichever candidate wins Ohio tends to win Florida. That is not because there is any quantum entanglement between Ohio and Florida. It is simply that the same process that pushes Ohio towards either the Democrats or Republicans will push Florida towards either the Democrats or Republicans. The key, then, is not to watch Ohio, or any so-called "bellwether" state, but to watch the underlying processes that operate across all contestable states.
There. Done. I'm sick of this question.
Of course, I'm not done, because I'm going to keep getting this question, year after year.
Anyway, though, the fact that such a banal question is the only kind of question the Commission wants is a demonstration of the point. Anything else you say will offend the Commission for being insufficiently "neutral."
But you know... the problem right now is that neutrality standard, and I've been writing about this, in game theoretic terms. Because you can't treat Trump like a normal candidate.
Nancy Pelosi had suggested that Biden refuse to debate without real-time fact-checking, which Biden couldn't do because refusing to debate would have looked bad. And of course, there's nothing Trump hates more than fact-checking. (Well, that and paying taxes.) But substantively, Pelosi was right. Trump is the most shameless, craven liar in human history. He is the lying-est liar who ever lied a lie. Putting him on stage and giving him a microphone as though he isn't the lying-est liar who ever lied a lie is itself an act of dishonesty.
Yes, the Commission on Presidential Debates is complicit in an act of dishonesty by implicitly treating Trump as a candidate who might speak the truth, even though every word out of his mouth will be a lie.
I have to watch this crap. I really don't want to. I find lies painful. Physically painful. This is beyond a sham, and tonight's debate will do damage to the country, merely by putting a sheen of legitimacy on the most illegitimate person in the history of American politics.
We are not amid a normal election, and anyone pretending that we are is complicit in Trump's lies.
Tonight is the first presidential "debate" of the 2020 general election campaign. Note my use of sarcasm quotes. This will not be a debate by any coherent definition of the term. It never is, but the Euclidean distance between our empirical observation and the Platonic ideal of "debate" will never be greater than when Donald Trump is on stage.
Yet let's think about what a debate is, or even a "debate," given what the term means as the rules and spectacle are arranged by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Does a candidate's ability to perform on that stage have anything to do with that candidate's ability to perform the job of president? No.
An election, let's remember, is a job interview. Literally. An election is a hiring mechanism. Hey! I wrote a book about this! Hiring And Firing Public Officials: Rethinking the Purpose of Elections (Oxford University Press, 2011).
When is a president ever required to get on a debate stage and do that debatin' thing? Never. Making that part of the job interview is like hiring an investment banker and, amid the interview process, handing a job applicant a violin and saying, "play me the Brandenburg Concertos. Go."
Yes, debates are stupid and pointless, and they should be canceled. Permanently. Hey! Here's me, advocating cancel culture! Cancel all presidential debates! Forever! They are stupid and pointless.
But "stupid and pointless" is just a baseline. There is such a thing as worse than stupid and pointless.
And here's a little anecdote. The first debate is happening spittin' distance from my life 'n livelihood, and given that, I was one of the people asked to contribute to a
The Commission, apparently, was unhappy with lots of stuff, viewing it as insufficiently "neutral," according to the marketing person who recorded my little spot. So instead of anything substantive, I was asked a banal question that I am asked with numbing frequency because, like an insipid pop tune, it won't offend anyone, which is more important than the fact that it lacks merit.
"Ohio [Peanuts adult "wah wah"] 'bellwether' [Peanuts adult "wah wah"]." You can fill in the rest of the wah wahs, right?
I'm scheduled to give another of those interviews today. I think I need to turn my answer into a Peanuts wah wah. I know I sound that way to my students quite frequently anyway.
So as an aside, here's my new stock answer. Stop asking about "bellwether" states. If you are thinking about elections in terms of a "bellwether" state, you are looking at elections the wrong way. Whichever candidate wins Ohio tends to win the election, but it is also true that whichever candidate wins Ohio tends to win Florida. That is not because there is any quantum entanglement between Ohio and Florida. It is simply that the same process that pushes Ohio towards either the Democrats or Republicans will push Florida towards either the Democrats or Republicans. The key, then, is not to watch Ohio, or any so-called "bellwether" state, but to watch the underlying processes that operate across all contestable states.
There. Done. I'm sick of this question.
Of course, I'm not done, because I'm going to keep getting this question, year after year.
Anyway, though, the fact that such a banal question is the only kind of question the Commission wants is a demonstration of the point. Anything else you say will offend the Commission for being insufficiently "neutral."
But you know... the problem right now is that neutrality standard, and I've been writing about this, in game theoretic terms. Because you can't treat Trump like a normal candidate.
Nancy Pelosi had suggested that Biden refuse to debate without real-time fact-checking, which Biden couldn't do because refusing to debate would have looked bad. And of course, there's nothing Trump hates more than fact-checking. (Well, that and paying taxes.) But substantively, Pelosi was right. Trump is the most shameless, craven liar in human history. He is the lying-est liar who ever lied a lie. Putting him on stage and giving him a microphone as though he isn't the lying-est liar who ever lied a lie is itself an act of dishonesty.
Yes, the Commission on Presidential Debates is complicit in an act of dishonesty by implicitly treating Trump as a candidate who might speak the truth, even though every word out of his mouth will be a lie.
I have to watch this crap. I really don't want to. I find lies painful. Physically painful. This is beyond a sham, and tonight's debate will do damage to the country, merely by putting a sheen of legitimacy on the most illegitimate person in the history of American politics.
We are not amid a normal election, and anyone pretending that we are is complicit in Trump's lies.
Comments
Post a Comment