Political Debates (and the hours wasted on them)
No wonder people get tired of politics and have a hard time trusting politicians. Why? We don't just stereotype them as liars: we actually EXPECT them to lie! Why else do debates get so much attention (i.e. Palin-Biden) without the words travesty or farce being muttered even once. Let me explain.
Debates have been going on for years. The first time the two major-party candidates debated was in 1960, when Richard Nixon faced John F. Kennedy. I can't tell you what happened in that debate, and i can't tell you how truthful they were (factcheck.org hadn't been invented yet...and Al Gore hadn't gotten around to inventing the internet quite yet either) but i do know that the debate is more about show than anything. I'll get to that in a minute.
When people tuned into the Palin-Biden debate they were looking more for a trainwreck than anything, especially after her Katie Couric interview. You know the kind that you are horrified to look at but can't seem to not slow down or stop alltogether out of curiosity? Sometimes i think it's more about being able to say "yeah, i not only heard about it, i actually saw it first hand!" to your friends or co-workers or family. Do you really think people tuned in to find out what the McCain-Palin ticket was all about? Or they were wondering what Obama and Biden were going to do about healthcare? Truth is debates are less about the issues and more about appearances. Let me go back to the Nixon-Kennedy debate.
Back in 1960 televisions weren't quite as popular as they are today. There was still a transition from radio to tv, even though around 87% of households had at least one tv in 1960 (i haven't been able to verify that data). Now that number is around 99% with the average number of television sets per household is above 2.2. So anyway, there was a survey done back in 1960 after the debate. Those that listened to the debate felt that Nixon (the more experienced of the two candidates) won the debate. Those that watched it felt that Kennedy won the debate. Nixon, while more experienced, was older and also apparently had a sweating problem. Kennedy was much younger looking and appeared more collected than Nixon, leading those that watched him to feel that he had won the debate. That fact wasn't lost on politicians.
So here we are in 2008 when all the debates are televised. And candidates have realized that it's as much about appearance as it is about what they say. I would argue that it's more about appearance than what they say. Truth is, the average American isn't going to know the truth of what the candidates say. Even the above average American is going to struggle to know if what anyone says is true. Our population only consists of about a quarter of the population with at least a bachelors degree. Still, that education doesn't make much difference when the candidates are often speaking of things that normal people just don't know about. Here are some examples:
In the presidential debate from October 7, 2008, Obama brought up McCain's plan to allow Americans to afford health insurance through making employer insurance benefits taxable income while allowing for a $5000 tax credit. He basically claimed it was pointless because you're going to be taxing current benefits just to try to give you a tax break somewhere else. Well, that's sort of true, except for the fact that the tax credit is going to mean more money saved than that which is paid through taxing the benefits.
Here's my assessment of what Obama is doing here: To me this twisting of the logic of McCain's plan is actual pretty clear because i would find it highly unlikely that the average person is receiving more than $5000 in benefits. A tax credit, from my limited understanding from my Accounting 200 class, is income that is exempt from taxes. So by getting a $5000 credit you don't have to pay taxes on this, thus lowering your taxable income as long as your current insurance benefits don't exceed $5000. Obama is trying to play to the ignorance of the average American with regards to taxes by using logic that seems to make sense when looked at face value. That doesn't mean McCain's plan isn't flawed. There have been estimates that show that implementing this plan would cause a $1.3 trillion budget deficit over a period of 10 years.
That's just an example, and i'm not trying to single out Obama here because both candidates do the whole twisting thing. When Obama talked about attacking Bin Ladin in Pakistan McCain classified it as being irresponsible though, when asked about that same situation a year ago, McCain gave the same exact answer Obama did. So who's the one being irresponsible? The one claiming we should do it? Or the one that did claim we should do it, and then when asked on a public stage the same question tried to come across as the experienced and the responsible candidate in order to gain political points?
Just so you know, i didn't watch the presidential debate. I did however watch most of the Palin-Biden debate. I don't like debates because it seems to be the same thing over and over again, with things being made up or stretched to make it seem to be something that it isn't. I watched Palin-Biden on NBC and after it was over they were asking their political guests to comment on the debate. The whole discussion was about how she didn't look nearly as bad as they expected her to, and about how she "held her own" against the more experience Biden. They refused to recognize the fact that she has a very "cookies and ice cream" understanding of government and national issues. There was very little substance to anything she said! All i know is that she lives in an energy-producing state and that she thinks we should drill because that's what the "American people" are calling for. Why don't we talk about the issues more and less about how people performed in a debate. Yes, she held her own, but what about foreign policy and what about financial crises and what about global warming and what about budget deficits?
Being a leader is more about knowing what you're doing and doing it well than your ability to speak in public or debate with another person. It feels like we've completely lost sight of that! We're stuck with a two-party system that gives us two candidates that really are probably just as qualified as the other, if you think about it. What they actually do in office is really a toss-up. It's totally a gamble because presidents are rarely held to the promises they make. We can't kick them out until at least four years have passed. And sometimes, if there isn't a better alternative, we vote them back in office, regardless of what they've done the past four years.
I'm mostly against party affiliation, from the simple fact that not every republican, and not every democrat, are going to make the best candidate. What i mean is that by voting strictly along party lines you're basically saying that no matter the ignorance of the candidate, or their record, or what they really stand for, you agree with them because they wear a certain badge that means they'll sort of go along with the group that you pretty much agree with. To me, voting along party lines is just the political form of laziness. If you research them and every republican candidate, or every democratic candidate, out there goes along with your belief system, then vote for every one of those candidates of your party. But please make sure that they really do stand for what you believe in, and you're as sure as you can be that they'll do what you feel is best for the majority of us.
Debates have been going on for years. The first time the two major-party candidates debated was in 1960, when Richard Nixon faced John F. Kennedy. I can't tell you what happened in that debate, and i can't tell you how truthful they were (factcheck.org hadn't been invented yet...and Al Gore hadn't gotten around to inventing the internet quite yet either) but i do know that the debate is more about show than anything. I'll get to that in a minute.
When people tuned into the Palin-Biden debate they were looking more for a trainwreck than anything, especially after her Katie Couric interview. You know the kind that you are horrified to look at but can't seem to not slow down or stop alltogether out of curiosity? Sometimes i think it's more about being able to say "yeah, i not only heard about it, i actually saw it first hand!" to your friends or co-workers or family. Do you really think people tuned in to find out what the McCain-Palin ticket was all about? Or they were wondering what Obama and Biden were going to do about healthcare? Truth is debates are less about the issues and more about appearances. Let me go back to the Nixon-Kennedy debate.
Back in 1960 televisions weren't quite as popular as they are today. There was still a transition from radio to tv, even though around 87% of households had at least one tv in 1960 (i haven't been able to verify that data). Now that number is around 99% with the average number of television sets per household is above 2.2. So anyway, there was a survey done back in 1960 after the debate. Those that listened to the debate felt that Nixon (the more experienced of the two candidates) won the debate. Those that watched it felt that Kennedy won the debate. Nixon, while more experienced, was older and also apparently had a sweating problem. Kennedy was much younger looking and appeared more collected than Nixon, leading those that watched him to feel that he had won the debate. That fact wasn't lost on politicians.
So here we are in 2008 when all the debates are televised. And candidates have realized that it's as much about appearance as it is about what they say. I would argue that it's more about appearance than what they say. Truth is, the average American isn't going to know the truth of what the candidates say. Even the above average American is going to struggle to know if what anyone says is true. Our population only consists of about a quarter of the population with at least a bachelors degree. Still, that education doesn't make much difference when the candidates are often speaking of things that normal people just don't know about. Here are some examples:
In the presidential debate from October 7, 2008, Obama brought up McCain's plan to allow Americans to afford health insurance through making employer insurance benefits taxable income while allowing for a $5000 tax credit. He basically claimed it was pointless because you're going to be taxing current benefits just to try to give you a tax break somewhere else. Well, that's sort of true, except for the fact that the tax credit is going to mean more money saved than that which is paid through taxing the benefits.
Here's my assessment of what Obama is doing here: To me this twisting of the logic of McCain's plan is actual pretty clear because i would find it highly unlikely that the average person is receiving more than $5000 in benefits. A tax credit, from my limited understanding from my Accounting 200 class, is income that is exempt from taxes. So by getting a $5000 credit you don't have to pay taxes on this, thus lowering your taxable income as long as your current insurance benefits don't exceed $5000. Obama is trying to play to the ignorance of the average American with regards to taxes by using logic that seems to make sense when looked at face value. That doesn't mean McCain's plan isn't flawed. There have been estimates that show that implementing this plan would cause a $1.3 trillion budget deficit over a period of 10 years.
That's just an example, and i'm not trying to single out Obama here because both candidates do the whole twisting thing. When Obama talked about attacking Bin Ladin in Pakistan McCain classified it as being irresponsible though, when asked about that same situation a year ago, McCain gave the same exact answer Obama did. So who's the one being irresponsible? The one claiming we should do it? Or the one that did claim we should do it, and then when asked on a public stage the same question tried to come across as the experienced and the responsible candidate in order to gain political points?
Just so you know, i didn't watch the presidential debate. I did however watch most of the Palin-Biden debate. I don't like debates because it seems to be the same thing over and over again, with things being made up or stretched to make it seem to be something that it isn't. I watched Palin-Biden on NBC and after it was over they were asking their political guests to comment on the debate. The whole discussion was about how she didn't look nearly as bad as they expected her to, and about how she "held her own" against the more experience Biden. They refused to recognize the fact that she has a very "cookies and ice cream" understanding of government and national issues. There was very little substance to anything she said! All i know is that she lives in an energy-producing state and that she thinks we should drill because that's what the "American people" are calling for. Why don't we talk about the issues more and less about how people performed in a debate. Yes, she held her own, but what about foreign policy and what about financial crises and what about global warming and what about budget deficits?
Being a leader is more about knowing what you're doing and doing it well than your ability to speak in public or debate with another person. It feels like we've completely lost sight of that! We're stuck with a two-party system that gives us two candidates that really are probably just as qualified as the other, if you think about it. What they actually do in office is really a toss-up. It's totally a gamble because presidents are rarely held to the promises they make. We can't kick them out until at least four years have passed. And sometimes, if there isn't a better alternative, we vote them back in office, regardless of what they've done the past four years.
I'm mostly against party affiliation, from the simple fact that not every republican, and not every democrat, are going to make the best candidate. What i mean is that by voting strictly along party lines you're basically saying that no matter the ignorance of the candidate, or their record, or what they really stand for, you agree with them because they wear a certain badge that means they'll sort of go along with the group that you pretty much agree with. To me, voting along party lines is just the political form of laziness. If you research them and every republican candidate, or every democratic candidate, out there goes along with your belief system, then vote for every one of those candidates of your party. But please make sure that they really do stand for what you believe in, and you're as sure as you can be that they'll do what you feel is best for the majority of us.
Comments