Comments on: Politics as usual

By: Laura

Laura — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:19:46 +0000

One problem with (live) debates is that they’re long, and a lot of people don’t have the time to watch them, especially those who have significant academic, work, or childcare/eldercare responsibilities. The other three categories of persuasion, for all their flaws, communicate information more efficiently. It’s true that people should take the time to educate themselves about the issues they care about (or, maybe, the issues that they should care about) and what each candidate has to say about them, but I really don’t have two hours most evenings to do that — and the kind of debate you’re discussing would have to be quite long. I need something in writing that I can read in small pieces when I have the time.

One could achieve this by having a paper debate: Candidate 1 writes a 7-paragraph exposition of his position on Issue X, Candidate 2 responds with a similar paper on her position and why her ideas are better than Candidate 1’s, and back and forth until they have no more to say. You’d get a thoughtful, reasoned discussion that would bring out all the relevant aspects of the issue, and many people who can’t watch live debates would have access to the information (and it would probably be better information, anyway).

By: Justin

Justin — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:03:32 +0000

@Matt: That’s a good point about television debates. My classification of “debate” is limited to honest, true discussions of differences in opinion, and I guess my argument is that the purest form of debate can only occur if the other “levels” are put aside. The distinction is confusing, though; I’ll try to think of a way to clarify it.

@DJ: Very, very good point about passion and inspiration. As you mentioned, I think emotional appeals are often misused in politics. Perhaps there is a difference between blatant fear/hopemongering, for example, and emotion that is apparent in a candidate’s words and presentations without explicitly being stated? Whatever the case, inspiration is of no value if there is no direction to leadership. The inspiration and unity need to lead to a stated cause.

By: Matt James

Matt James — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:12:16 +0000

DJ: I completely agree regarding the ability of a leader to inspire a nation.

By: DJ

DJ — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:15:57 +0000

I think you have the start of something there. I tend to look at debates as the political ideal because their purpose is to serve a greater good through a thorough exchange of ideas and beliefs. Much of today’s politics is intended to serve the “party” or for personal advancement.

Also, I don’t think I would classify use of emotion as a bad thing necessarily. I can think of no greater qualification for a great leader than the ability to inspire and uplift us to unite around a noble cause. Sadly though, appeals to our emotions are all too often used to our detriment as a device to divide or to scare us into submission.

By: Matt James

Matt James — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:07:16 +0000

While I agree that debates can be awesome, in my opinion, the television events are really just a front for misleading statements and half-truths.

Having said that, FactCheck.org rocks for weeding out the junk!