Debating Debates: Are They Really Effective?

Have the presidential debates really helped civic participation or have the presidential debates created an opportune forum for politicians to exercise their sound bite media speeches. By allowing the candidates to dictate the terms that the debates take place under, Americans are missing out on true debate and lose out in the end. According to Thomas Hollihan’s Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age, “these debates attract attention because they come as close to “good television” as political discussions ever can. They have a sense of confrontation and clash, there is a media buildup of anticipation and then, of course, there is a fallow up discussion of who won the debate. Most important for many viewers, there is a real sense of drama and the very real possibility that one candidate or the other will commit a major gaffe that might derail his or her candidacy.” (Page 223)
IF we fallow this flawed model, then no one wins in the end including the viewer. By framing the debates as a winner take all showdown surrounded by a three ring circus, it becomes impossible for viewers to truly decipher a candidates message make a judgment. In the end, potential voters find themselves watching another reality TV show, except the implications of this one don’t center around one million dollars, but they center around the potential leader of the country. If the debates continue to focus on spectacle and theatricality, then good decisions about candidates and their platforms will never be reached by the general public.

This clip of Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale in their debate shows just how the spectacle of such an event can dramatically hinder the public thought based on a sound bite that was witty and well placed at the time. Ronald Reagan was an actor of great talents, he is also considered by many, or a select few depending on the side of the aisle, to be one of our greatest presidents. But this quote essentially killed Mondale and cemented Reagan’s bid to the White House. If we judged everyday occurrences on society on 10 second sound bites and not on the facts, then we would have much bigger issues at hand. Consider this video clip for instance:

In “Mr. Griffin Goes to Washington” Peter is able to rouse the crowd of dissenting opinions with a simple “come on” which is essentially what Reagan is doing. He’s committing a fallacy of not addressing the question but in fact flipping it in his favor. This is seen as god TV for the commentators who hope to “pick a winner” but by running this clip over and over, the media just reinforced the fallacy and boost the vote for Reagan cause “gosh darn it he’s funny!”
More recently, we saw the same line of attack used in the vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. Palin again uses some “provocative” language to drive home her point and yet delivers it with a candor that would have you believe she is competent and well informed on many issues:

Wow, “raping the environment,” by using such crass language Palin is able to avoid elaboration and exact numbers in explaining herself which she’s done of a lot of since, and hopes that a witty comment will win her an election. As we know, McCain and Palin lost the 2008 election, and in later events the former governor of Alaska chose to resign for “personal reasons,” thank god going rogue has been such a success, oh wait… Well there’s always 2012.
This is partially to blame because of the speaking time limits candidates are given, it’s like an amateur comedian going on at a night club knowing he has 3 minutes to deliver some laughs. According to Hollihan “many critics have also complained that candidates in these debates are given little opportunity to develop sustained and well-reasoned arguments because their speaking times are so short.” (Page 228) A study done on audiences during the Carter-Reagan debates during the 1980 presidential race looked at “when a candidate used evidence or analysis to support his position and whether the use of either evidence or analysis actually enhanced the appeal of the better-supported argument.” (Page 229) The results concluded that viewers could correctly identify support versus analysis, but were just as likely to be influenced by an argument without evidence as an argument with. (Page 229) So if the general public are not able to distinguish between a valid argument and an invalid argument that takes place in a debate, how are they making the correct and informed decision when they make it to the polls?
A problematic effect of these debates is what Hollihan refers to as mixed data that results from these debates. “The data are mixed in terms of explaining how a candidate’s debate performance will affect voter choices.” (Page 233) This stems from fact that most people who watch the debate are already partisan in their views and is in-fact watching to reinforce their choice and not be swayed according to Hollihan. So if political debates are shown to be just as ineffective as the campaign commercials that flood the airwaves, why are they framed as the monster sized events that they are.
According to Hollihan, in 2004 John Kerry was seen as the winner of all three debates over President George W. Bush, but the title of “debate winner” did little to help him win the election in the long run. Again, if one candidate can be seen as the “winner” in a debate and yet walk away from the election the loser, should the national media put so much emphasis on the debates. By framing them to be grudge matches and boxing titles, aren’t we cheapening the experience of allowing the candidates to talk on an open platform about important political and social issues. We limit their time for them to get their “punches” in and then ring the bell when we might actually see a leveling blow.
“Observing televised debates and then talking about the issues that emerge in those debates informs voters about the issues, mobilizes them towards action, and helps citizens develop the skills necessary for self governance… Participatory democracies require these conversations,” according to Hollihan, but at what point as a people do we decide that sometimes the framing of these issues is not properly done? Are we as a people having the right discussions after debates or are we allowing the media to shape their agenda by framing the debates in their own way? Can we be considered a responsible democracy by allowing the discourse that takes place about the debates to be framed and shaped by the very rules that create the sound bites within the debates? Or as citizens is it time for us to realize that the debate is only as informational as the media and candidates want it to be, and do we take the initiative to find the information for ourselves and ignore the witty banter to get to the bottom of a campaign platform?

God: The Best reference a Politician Could Ask For

It doesn't matter how you worship god, as long as he is the Judeo-Christian god, the one who fathered Jesus Christ, our "lord and savior." As long as God is on your side, you can make it to the highest areas of government. But if you are a sinner or god forbid (no pun intended) a godless, faithless candidate, then you can kiss your nomination goodbye. Some of the most successful political campaigns and candidates in history aligned themselves with god. Unfortunately the probability of nomination is slim to none if you don't have the "Big Guy's" endorsement, in-fact it's damn near impossible. Without aligning one's self with a predominantly Christian religious group, election to an office in government is extremely difficult.

If you disagree with this statement, then I invite you to Google search Atheist and Agnostic politicians. This shouldn't be a difficult process because you won't find any member of congress or high elected office that does not have a religious affiliation within these two categories. Why is it so important to align with God as a politician? Does his vote push every candidate over the edge? Or does he secretly tell all of his disciples that voting for a friend of his is a vote for him?

What makes this pattern of political success and a candidate's affiliation with God is the statistics of Americans who are polled would have you believe that political success has little to do with religious affiliation. According to the Pew Forum, Americans are becoming increasingly diverse in the religious affiliation. Over 35,000 Americans were surveyed in 2008, and of that number, over 16 percent considered themselves "unaffiliated." But when we dive deeper into these numbers only 1.6 percent of the cohort considered themselves Atheist and 2.4 percent identified themselves as Agnostics. Interestingly enough, the younger the poll participants were, the higher the "unaffiliated" numbers were. The highest identified groups in the study were in-fact Evangelical Protestants at 26.3 percent and Catholics at 23.9 percent.This explains American's tendencies to vote for a candidate that shows "unwavering" religious devotion. According to Thomas Hollihan’s Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age “religious political activists, especially those drawn from conservative and evangelical Protestant faiths, have been much more actively involved in political campaigns in recent years.”(page 68)

Many voters of former president George W. Bush may recall the president's devout Methodist beliefs. What many of the supporters may not know of Bush's path to Christianity and how effective (or ineffective) he was while in office in staying on his path of "righteousness." Bush claims he found God, as seen in the July 25^th 1999 article published in the Washington Post, entitled Bush's Life-Changing Year. The article chronicles Bush's struggle with alcohol and his subsequent "religious re-awakening" at the age of 40. This came during the summer of 1986, a time in which his father was just beginning his campaign for president (coincidence?) The article accounts numerous times where Bush's alcoholism negatively affected his business and personal life, "In the end, Bush said, the key to giving up alcohol was the new spirituality he had begun to embrace the year before. Bush is not a particularly introspective man, but whatever soul-searching there was to do; he had started doing in the summer of 1985, after a conversation at the family summer retreat in Kennebunkport with the Rev. Billy Graham, a longtime family friend and spiritual adviser."

Hollihan might attribute this change because "people tend to associate with other people who share their values and worldviews, which are in turn reinforced by their increased interactions with those people."(page 69) Billy Graham's political involvement is well noted within the Republican Party, from his days in the 60's into the 70's and his involvement in the Nixon's administration and the "moral majority." What is even more interesting is despite Bush's faith and beliefs, he only once attended church while office. An interesting note is that frequent church-goers tend to identify with Bush's policies more than non-church-goers according to the Democratic Underground. Oddly enough, many Republican voters claim they identified with Bush's devout religious views and practices and cited those as reasons to vote for him. So if his mere association with belief, without proof of constant church attendance, can offer a solid religious platform for him to relate with voters on, what happens when a candidate sites themselves as "Unspecified."

According to a survey of congress conducted of the 109^th US congress, the United States Congress and Senate are comprised of 535 Senators and Representatives. Of those 535, only four representatives considered themselves "un-affiliated." The title of unaffiliated does not mean atheist or agnostic, but just means no identification with a particular religious sect, but they still worship God, the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God. That is less than one percent of Congress, all four were democrats; included in that list were Tammy Baldwin the Congresswoman from Wisconsin, John Olver and John Tierney from Massachusetts, and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. Again, it is important to remember that "unspecified" does not constitute a non-believer, but someone who is not self aligned with a specific church. It is almost impossible to find a prominent political figure that completely and purposely disassociates with predominant churches in this country.

Perhaps the most prominent politician/ political activist to say he has no religious affiliation is Gore Vidal. Vidal has been quoted as having said such memorable atheist lines as "I'm a born-again atheist," and "Once people get hung up on theology, they've lost sanity forever. More people have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other name in the history of the world." The latter Vidal was quoted in the Secular Humanist Bulletin in the summer of 1995. Vidal has said time and time again how detrimental to society monotheistic beliefs have been. Vidal has been a consistent contributor to the Democratic Party and was a major player in the 1950's and 60's, especially when he ran for congress in New York's 29^th congressional district, which at the time was considered highly republican according to PBS. Vidal also ran for U.S Senate on the California ticket in 1982 at a heavily Republican time in the nation's history with the recent election of Ronald Reagan, the former Governor and high profile Republican of California.

Many attribute Vidal's lack of success politically to his outspoken stance as an atheist. This clearly shows that in order to run successfully for any spot in high-profile government, one must be affiliated with God. Vidal's contempt for organized monotheistic religion proved to be his downfall, although he is considered by many to be one of the most brilliant people of the 20^th century. But in contrast to candidates who listed themselves as "unspecified" Vidal has been known for his staunch stance on Atheism as well as his view of religion's detrimental structure and its negative effects on society. This in turn shows how specifying nothing or claiming to be "unspecified" is better than specifying one's self as a non-believer or Atheist or Agnostic. Vidal's political failure stems from what Hollihan substantiates as Americans being "the most religious people found in western democracy (as measured by church attendance). Americans are for religious than our European allies."(page 69) That being the case, many would argue Vidal never stood a chance.

In the end, it appears to be more convenient to miraculously find God as a sinner, to deny his very existence as a politician. As long as America is a God fearing country, then our elected officials must be seen as the same way, as Vidal would put it "Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority and that of his delegates on earth. One God, one King, one Pope, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family at home." Without this structure which emphasizes belief in a great power over non-belief, society will never truly advance beyond its God fearing ways. To be seen as a "moral" politician, one must put their faith in a higher being that essentially usurps their power and in turn keeps them "honest." This in turn protects the people from the heathen, God-less people that would only harm our precious society.