TV “Debates”

My name is Hugh and I did not watch the presidential debates on TV.  I must be honest: I did not plan to watch them because I did not expect to learn anything important from them. They are not designed to inform; they are entertainment staged for a TV audience. And I don’t find them terribly entertaining.

In such a TV event speeches are timed and each player is allowed a few minutes to speak and a few more to “rebut” the other — with an emcee carefully watching to make certain that neither goes over his allotted time. There will be no time for real rebuttal — an examination of assumptions, development of arguments with premises made explicit, counter-arguments (as opposed to charges and counter-charges, of which there usually are plenty). In a word, there is no intellectual discussion of the most important issues confronting American voters. Instead, there is a televised event in which two performers parade their stuff before the viewing audience which is known to have short attention spans with the goal of making the strongest impression. The “winner” is declared not on the grounds of which speaker made the most sense, but which “came off” the best, which one mentioned the most things that resonated loudest with the larger group of people.  It’s all about impressions in the Age of Entertainment. Like school and church these days, politics is show biz!

I am generalizing on the basis of past experience, but I am also developing a theme that Neil Postman argued in his provocative book Amusing Ourselves to Death in which he makes the case that TV marked the end of the Age of Exposition — which started to die with the invention of the telegraph in the mid-nineteenth century — and the full flowering of the Age of Entertainment. With the death of exposition we saw the gradual disappearance of the “sophisticated ability to think conceptually, deductively, and sequentially; a high valuation of reason and order; an abhorrence of contradiction; a large capacity for detachment and objectivity; and a tolerance for delayed response.” Postman makes a strong case. Can you imagine one of today’s TV debaters pausing to think?

He asks us to consider the Lincoln-Douglass debates in 1858 in which men and women stood for seven hours in the hot Illinois sun and listened carefully to two men debate the serious topics of the day, incorporating into their speeches such devices as story, sarcasm, irony, paradox, elaborated metaphors, fine distinctions, and the exposure of contradictions. The audience listened carefully and picked up on the subtle nuances they were hearing. In a word, there was a true debate involving the meeting of two minds on complex topics of the day in which the audience was asked  (and able) to follow closely and critically for what seems today an impossible length of time.

Consider Douglas’s opening comments in one of the debates: “Ladies and Gentlemen: I appear before you today for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind. By an arrangement between Mr. Lincoln and myself we are  present here today for the purpose of having a joint discussion, as the representatives of the two great political parties of the State and Union, upon the principles at issue between those parties, and this vast concourse of people shows the deep feeling which pervades the public mind in regard to the questions dividing us.” How many modern listeners would (or could) follow this comment to the end — much less listen closely for seven hours?

Bear in mind that neither Lincoln nor Douglas was running for president at that time. They were two men debating public the issues of the day. Today’s TV presidential debates offer a sharp contrast not only in style but in substance. Instead of ideas painstakingly developed we have thought-bytes, slogans and clichés (Yahoo News wondered in print how many “zingers” Romney would get off). As Ortega y Gasset noted when the Age of Entertainment was aborning, we have ideas but we have lost the power of “ideation,” the ability to develop an idea to its full expression. In staged TV debates we are not asked to engage our minds, we are asked how we feel. And the person who makes us feel good will “win” the debate — not the one who speaks the truth (whatever that might be) or explains fully and carefully what he or she plans to do in leading this nation for the next four years. Because this is 2012, the Age of Entertainment, and the one who makes most of us feel good will eventually be elected President of this country.

I will of course vote. There are important issues at stake, including at least one possible appointment to the Supreme Court and the matter of taking steps to save of our planet. But my vote will be cast on the basis of what the candidate has done in the past and what I have reason to believe he will do in the future — as best I can tell. I have learned that what politicians say on TV is nothing more than a political commercial: it’s designed to sell the product.


23 thoughts on “TV “Debates”

  1. I went to bed shortly after it began. I’m not really sure if I will vote. I always feel stupid after voting. I can’t help but think of my favorite author and my favorite comedian.

    Kurt Vonnegut wrote that the Seal of the President of the United States “should” be a picture of one of those children’s steering wheels, with the big suction cup, that you used to stick to the dashboard of your car so that Junior could pretend to steer and go “Beep Beep”.

    George Carlin said that on Election Day he stays home, locks the doors and pulls down the shades and masturbates. His reasoning is that, unlike the people who vote, he, at least, will have a little something to show for all his effort.

    All the Best
    Mrs. N.

    • My reply to Emily’s comment was supposed to go to you! I do think all three of you were correct and I do thank you for the visit. Hope to see you again soon!

  2. Excellent piece. I typed a longer response on my iPad earlier today, only to have it disappear into electronic never-never land.

    We are in a sound-byte age, with attention spans of 30 seconds at best, thus the debates, which due to a prior engagement, I also missed, are little more than a string of elongated political commercials. I would have enjoyed the Lincoln-Douglas debates, if for nothing else than the opportunity to hear extended conversations on a topic, instead of 2 minutes pre-packaged pablum.

    Had a good “conversation with Mrs N this morning on my “news” piece. I referred her to this blog and to you as a favorite blogger. I see she already wrote you.

    Thanks for the continuing good work, always a great read.

  3. Just noticed in your [ABOUT] that you started out in Charlottesville. I “ended up” retiring about 40 miles south of there in Amherst. FYI it’s a beautiful Fall day here at the foot of The Blue Ridge. My daughter got her masters in philosophy at UVA and her husband a PhD in physics there. Small World. Awfully glad I found your Blog!

    • Thank you! I started out in Charlottesville but moved to Baltimore when I was two! But I returned many times and my grandmother lived there. I almost attended UVA but went to St. John’s in Annapolis instead. Thanks for stopping by!

  4. I can’t imagine not watching. It is not for me to decide who to vote for. That doesn’t change for me through a debate, but that is not the case for much of the public, and I want to see first-hand what people are reacting to. It was painful to watch last night and my blood pressure always goes up when I watch. But I would never miss it!!!

    • I knew you would be disappointed, given what I know of you. But I have never been drawn to the scene of an accident and that’s what this sort of thing reminds me of. Sorry.


      • Oh no, I think you make a lot of sense. But I still think that it is helpful to see what people are reacting to, since I am afraid that a lot of undecided voters use the debates to make their decisions. And the race is so close that that could make the difference, unfortunately. I admire you for being able to stay away from it – I am pretty addicted to the whole thing for good or ill…

  5. I did not watch, but listened. You missed nothing. I think just listening is even worse than watching and listening. When watching, one can be distracted by mannerisms, smiles, sneers, gestures, smirks, and various types of eye movements, so there may be an element of entertainment to it with watching. Listening only, makes the whole thing a sad event. I’ve heard better discussions from teenagers.

  6. Here is what I don’t get. Everybody I know, when they see two Mormons, in their white shirts and little skinny dark ties, heading up the walk, toward their front door, DUCKS DOWN…. behind the sofa and tries not to make any noise… so they will go away.

    Why these same people would take seriously one of them RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT is beyond me. When he starts mucking about passing crazy laws you can’t hide behind the sofa. Do you think people know that?

    • I think people have selective perception: they see only what they want to see. At this point they are looking for the man who will guarantee that they can hold on to their money.


      • I know you are correct about the “selective perception” HC….. I see that and paranormal belief as man’s two prominent characteristics. I’m not so sure about the money business. Here in the South it is color first, color second, and third is the fact that Obama is Black.

      • I considered going back and highlighting the chuckle triggers on each post, but alas, projects are brewing in the kitchen, a bodega project awaits downstairs, and a carpenter will be here soon! I’ll save that for a rainy day, and wow, do we ever have those in the first quarter of each year!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s