Debate fatigue
August 11th 2007 06:41
I'm probably more interested in politics than most folks, but the number of presidential debates leading up to the 2008 election is staggering. While I'm not against debates as a rule, I just can't see the rationale in marching out the same candidates and asking them the same old questions and receiving the same old answers over and over and over again. While it may not have set in yet, we are in great danger of experiencing debate fatigue. And with an already cynical and weary electorate, that's not a good thing.
I can understand why there are more debates. As I'm sure you've noticed, the campaign season has already been in full swing for a while. The candidates started declaring early, the media started paying attention early, and now quite a few states have moved up the dates of their primaries. I can certainly appreciate the eagerness to start looking ahead. Dubya hasn't exactly been the most popular of presidents and a lot of people are (quite literally) counting the days until he leaves office. Also, the 24-hour news channels are notorious for needing filler for their sometimes slow news cycles. And it seems like they have been even deeper in hyperdrive since 9/11 and since the Iraq War started. So I understand why there might be a need for or desire for several debates. However, as the old adage says, there can be too much of a "good" thing.
Likewise, I usually enjoy watching debates. I like to hear the candidates' positions on issues and I like to see how they comport themselves. A serious candidate for president must, at the very least, appear "presidential". And, while I'm loathe to admit it, I do enjoy seeing the occasional "macaca" moment -- when a candidate is caught off guard and says something that he/she regrets. Yes, it can just be a slip-up, but it can also be an insight into someone's true character. What we usually see are the rehearsed, polished, canned answers that the candidates are convinced will get them the most votes. Those macaca moments can peel back the curtain, even if only for a moment. So I do enjoy debates. Still, when each debate is essentially just a carbon copy (in style or substance or both) of the last debate, the law of diminishing returns is bound to kick in.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people aren't tuning in yet to the political noise machine. Or maybe they are tuning in and are just loving it. Maybe debate fatigue hasn't -- and won't -- set in. But if there are folks out there like me -- with a low tolerance for empty and monotonous political rhetoric -- then the low boil of a simmering backlash against our whole election process is already starting to build. And that isn't good for the country or a public that has had a bellyful of politics and politicians.
I can understand why there are more debates. As I'm sure you've noticed, the campaign season has already been in full swing for a while. The candidates started declaring early, the media started paying attention early, and now quite a few states have moved up the dates of their primaries. I can certainly appreciate the eagerness to start looking ahead. Dubya hasn't exactly been the most popular of presidents and a lot of people are (quite literally) counting the days until he leaves office. Also, the 24-hour news channels are notorious for needing filler for their sometimes slow news cycles. And it seems like they have been even deeper in hyperdrive since 9/11 and since the Iraq War started. So I understand why there might be a need for or desire for several debates. However, as the old adage says, there can be too much of a "good" thing.
Likewise, I usually enjoy watching debates. I like to hear the candidates' positions on issues and I like to see how they comport themselves. A serious candidate for president must, at the very least, appear "presidential". And, while I'm loathe to admit it, I do enjoy seeing the occasional "macaca" moment -- when a candidate is caught off guard and says something that he/she regrets. Yes, it can just be a slip-up, but it can also be an insight into someone's true character. What we usually see are the rehearsed, polished, canned answers that the candidates are convinced will get them the most votes. Those macaca moments can peel back the curtain, even if only for a moment. So I do enjoy debates. Still, when each debate is essentially just a carbon copy (in style or substance or both) of the last debate, the law of diminishing returns is bound to kick in.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people aren't tuning in yet to the political noise machine. Or maybe they are tuning in and are just loving it. Maybe debate fatigue hasn't -- and won't -- set in. But if there are folks out there like me -- with a low tolerance for empty and monotonous political rhetoric -- then the low boil of a simmering backlash against our whole election process is already starting to build. And that isn't good for the country or a public that has had a bellyful of politics and politicians.
| 47 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jim Stillman
liberals are too open minded to take an absolute opinion!
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Now, Jim -- I think liberals take absolute opinions quite often. The problem is that they frequently follow them up the next day with an opposite absolute opinion.