Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
"No more debates? No. More debates."
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/02/13/120213taco_talk_hertzbergThe Debate Debate
by Hendrik Hertzberg
February 13, 2012
Weve got to stop the debates! Enough with the debates! That was John McCains plea on Meet the Press the Sunday before his favored candidate (Mitt Romney) pulped his unfavored one (Newt Gingrich) like an overripe orange in the Florida Republican primary.
snip//
Theres a lot about the debates thats problematic. They privilege certain abilitieseloquence, aggressiveness, quickness of wit, an ability to convey emotions that resonatethat are not always distinguishable from glibness or demagoguery. Nor are todays debates all that distinguishable from other kinds of reality televisionthe elaborate red-white-and-blue sets, the swooping cameras, the new media flourishes (questions from Twitter and YouTube), the howling studio audiences. The accepted format, somewhere between a joint press conference and an unfriendly, overcaffeinated panel discussion, is choppy and awkward. Even so, especially against the background of the increasing ghastliness of other aspects of twenty-first-century campaigning, the debates are of inestimable value. They enable voters to see and hear the candidates in a sustained manner, outside the protective cocoons of their handlers, packagers, stage managers, consultants, PACs, and Super PACs. They oblige the candidates to speak for themselves. As Minow has written, The debates are the only time during presidential campaigns when the major candidates appear together side by side under conditions that they do not control. In TiVo veritas.
This year, the Commission on Presidential Debates, which Minow organized, co-chaired, and, at the age of eighty-six, still serves as a board member, has scheduled three debates in October between President Obama and his eventual opponent. But, if it takes a party twenty-odd debates to pick a candidate, are three enough for a country to pick a President? That other Newt, Gingrich, keeps saying, with his customary grandiosity, that he wants to debate Obama seven times, Lincoln-Douglas style, without a moderator. Newt may be going nowhere, and hes no Douglas (never mind Lincoln), but is his number really so far off? Before J.F.K. was assassinated, he and Barry Goldwater talked about stumping the country together as a debating duo, even sharing the same plane. Wouldnt it be a canny move, as well as a daring and imaginative one, for the current President to propose something similar this fall, towell, to Mitt Romney, presumably? If Romney declined, no harm done, except maybe to him. If he said yes, the public interest would be well served (and the partnership would make it a little harder for either side to conduct a parallel campaign of Super PAC slanders). No more debates? No. More debates. ?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 887 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"No more debates? No. More debates." (Original Post)
babylonsister
Feb 2012
OP
tanyev
(42,610 posts)1. "No more debates on my lawn!"