« Touchy Catholics | Main | The consensus is that I'm wrong »
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
Now we know how debates can be stupider
"I think this is a ridiculous exercise."
-- Joe Biden
Amen.
If the frontiersmen who trashed the White House after Andrew Jackson's inaugural had had YouTube, it would have looked like what we saw out of Charleston Monday night.
No, I take that back. The yahoos who had to be lured back out of the mansion with ice cream in 1829 were not this insipid. They were real; they were who they were, and I shouldn't malign them by comparing them to the "Ain't I cute" questioners on the "YouTube debate."
Gail Collins has it exactly right on today's op-ed page, as I've said before (sorry; can't show it to you -- you know how the NYT is. You can't have a serious debate with five or six or -- come on, eight? -- candidates on the stage. But there are worse things than the debates we had seen up to now -- people who would occupy the most important job in the world being subjected to "Reality TV," and having to be deeply respectful of this abuse. (Certainly I think it's a very important question," said Chris Dodd to the first one. It wasn't.)
Joe Biden was only answering one of the questions that came out of this process in the quote above, but it easily applied to the evening -- or most of it. Some of the questions were questions that should have been asked. But they would have been better asked by people who did not see themselves and the message. And they say politicians are narcissistic.
I like YouTube. I love YouTube. It can be fun. It can be useful. But unless it is applied much better than it was in this case, it cannot bring intelligence or coherence to a format that is far too fragmented and distracting already -- the free-for-all debate among anyone and everyone who says he or she wants the nomination.
If you wish to learn what was said -- and I certainly don't blame you if you didn't watch it -- without the distractions of the posturing, mugging, simpering and snideness of the the questioners hitting you full in the face -- here's a transcript. But it doesn't help much.
Did I get anything out of this debate? Yes. I saw once again that behind all the "I want to get out of Iraq faster than Cindy Sheehan does" posturing by this crowd seeking the affections of the angry base, serious people know that it's not that simple. Obama: "At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." Of course, he went on to promise a quick retreat, but I think he knows better (at this point, I'll grasp at any straw for hope that someone who might be president might have a clue). Biden: "You know we can't just pull out now." Of course, he then quickly proposes a pullout, but at least he has a coherent plan. I think it's an extraordinarily dangerous plan (creating an independent Kurdistan on Turkey's border?), but it's a plan.
I could go into other "issues," such as Chris Dodd's white hair, or Anderson What's-His-Name's white hair, or whether John Edwards is better for women than Hillary Clinton (his wife says so, but let's not go there), or how black Barack Obama is. But I think it's safe to say that we'll hear more about such things as the months grind slowly on.
Bottom line: We didn't learn anything more from this than the middle-school slam-book stuff we had known before: Hillary projects presidential; Obama is smart and charismatic; Biden and Richardson are experienced, Gravel is certifiable, Kucinich is irritating, Edwards is a demagogue, and Dodd is uninteresting.
But hey; I can pander to the masses as much as the next guy: What did you think?
Posted by Brad Warthen at 06:03 AM in Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Elections, In Our Time, John Edwards, Media, Mike Gravel, Popular culture, Technology, The Nation
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef00e008de471c8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Now we know how debates can be stupider:
Comments
I think they should have used an "American Idol" format.Each candidate could do a song about their positions,and then Randy,Paula,and Simon could critique each performance.Of course,this being a democracy,the viewers at home would decide the winner.I don't think this would be any more surreal,but it would be far more entertaining.People might even watch.
Posted by: bill | Jul 24, 2007 7:30:26 AM
Did you catch the part with the YouTube questions they DIDN'T ask? There was one from a precocious child in SC.
These were dismissed as parents using their kids to ask grownup questions.
I thought some grownup questions would have been nice to have...
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 24, 2007 8:11:30 AM
I thought the preacher who got an in-studio follow-up to his gay rights video question, apparently to skewer John Edwards in his former home state, was a pathetically unprofessional journalistic ambush that Edwards handled remarkably well.
Otherwise, it was the same old same old: Hillary projects arrogant, not presidential, and, like her husband, she's a born liar who never really answers a question; Obama is smart and charismatic but appears naive, especially on foreign policy; Biden has the stones and experience but displays too much cutting edge; Richardson shows up well but doesn't look presidential; Gravel offers more truth than anyone would like to admit from his perch in the on-stage audience; Kucinich being elected to anything appears more amazing with each debate; Edwards still looks too young and smarmy; Dodd still looks too old and smarmy.
The Democrats really need to get the also-rans off the stage and back into the asylum so the HOE show -- Hillary-Obama-Edwards -- can get started.
Posted by: weldon VII | Jul 24, 2007 9:14:36 AM
Yeah,I saw that.I was amazed at some of the videos they DID allow.I guess I did enjoy it in a sort of Dan Aykroyd SNL way.It was "truly,truly,bad".But then the "Daytime Emmy Awards" get my vote for deliciously awful TV.
Posted by: bill | Jul 24, 2007 9:31:36 AM
Brad, lighten up a bit. I enjoyed the debate. It was fresh and different. It's important to see how candidates handle themselves in different environments.
(As usual Brad has to throw in the gratuitous, "it's irresponsible to get out of Iraq" dig. And, as usual, fails to explain why.)
Posted by: bud | Jul 24, 2007 10:28:30 AM
That wasn't a dig. That was me reaching for some scrap of hope that whoever the president is, it's someone with a realistic perspective rather than someone who will do ANYTHING with regard to national security if it's popular among the base.
I don't want a Republican who wants to round up all the illegals, and I don't want a Democrat who can't wait to abandon Iraq. Whenever I hear any candidate departing from party line and actually THINKING about these issues, I am encouraged. And perhaps I strain too hard to hear it, but I really, really want to.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 24, 2007 10:56:29 AM
A related thing I was encouraged by: Hillary saying she wouldn't rush into hugging Hugo Chavez and the like. She does that a lot, and good for her. She often seems to be doing her best not to commit to something stupid because it might sound good to the base in a debate.
Obama does the same thing a lot. So does Biden, but everybody's dismissed him, right?
Another thing that occurred to me after posting this morning: As painfully informal as this format was, no one asked Hillary if she wears boxers or briefs. And something I like about her is that she would never, ever answer such a question (yeah, I know chicks generally don't wear boxers, but you know what I mean).
Bill was fun, and if you're going to have a party you're more likely to invite him than the wife, and tell him to bring the saxophone. But at least Hillary's got some dignity.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 24, 2007 11:01:26 AM
I don't want a Democrat who can't wait to abandon Iraq.
-Brad
I love this word parsing. Here's my version describing the same event:
I want a Democrat who has the courage to stand up to the profiteering special interests who continue to use fear tactics to shroud the truth that our military involvement in Iraq is counterproductive to our national security interests. We need a president who recognizes that the only sensible military action is one that will quickly bring our troops home in order to foster American security at home, rebuild the respect we lost from a half decade of military adventurism, while at the same time allowing Iraqis to pursue their own destiny unfettered by our undesirable occupation of their homeland.
Posted by: bud | Jul 24, 2007 12:52:14 PM
I don't kno 'bout anyone else, but until the media comes up with a more substantial way of holding a debate (i.e. give time, and expect the candidates to say something substantial, rather than 30 sec. snippets) I have been going to the candidates web sites and trying to plough through their policy statements. Of course this doesn't give one the opportunity to challenge any statement, and some of them can use a lot of words to say nothing.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Jul 24, 2007 12:59:56 PM
Come on, bud, you're being deliberately ironic here, right? "The courage?" You're kidding, right? The only thing that takes courage for a Democrat these days is to do or say anything that seems to stand in the way of the base getting what it wants -- immediately. And what that base wants is complete retreat, desert the field, let's go. These are (in some cases) smart people up on that stage, and they're smart enough to know that the base can't have what it wants. I keep looking for them to have the guts to be straight about that, and when they are, I'm encouraged.
"Profiteering special interests?" That sounds like something from an Oliver Stone paranoiafest. What special interests? What profiteering? I'm probably the only guy in this virtual room who sees abandoning Iraq as a mad, dangerous course of action. So what's in it for me? Where's my profit? What have I ever gotten out of expressing what I believe to be right and true on this besides a lot of grief from you and others who think as you do?
Make an argument if you'd like to, but don't just say wild stuff...
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 24, 2007 1:15:03 PM
I wouldn't expect someone in the media to like the YouTube Debate. This format took the power from the media and gave it to the people. Last time I checked the people elect out leaders, and it about time we got an opportunity to ask questions of the candidates who may end up leading the free world.
Posted by: Logan Lee | Jul 24, 2007 2:16:17 PM
Halliburton?
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Jul 24, 2007 2:31:47 PM
Come on, Karen, what does that mean? How about Force Protection? How about General Motors? You want to see a war in which fotrunes were made? Check out the war against Hitler.
I think we outsource too much, right down to food service in the mess hall. But that's what the country decided to do years ago. We decided to have a volunteer military, so thousands of tasks that would have been performed by an overstaffed military are now contracted out. I don't like it. There will always be something unsavory about making money off of war. But someone always will, and the fact that they do does not prove the war is just or unjust.
"Halliburton" is like a talisman. It evokes Cheney, which invokes the whole personal thing about the war, which gets us back into a conversation we already had. I don't know the people who run Halliburton; if I did I'd probably think they were a bunch of greedy jerks; I don't know. But the fact that some greedy jerks might make money off a war is not exactly an argument for or against our involvement in a particular conflict -- and it certainly has nothing to do with the conversations we have here. I'm not making a buck off it, you're not, and bud's not. And if we were, how much guts do you think it would take for Democratic candidates for president to play to the crowd by telling us where to get off? You couldn't hold them back; they couldn't wait to flip us off.
"Courage" in a Democratic primary would be to explain to people that this is not a commitment we can walk about from. THAT would take some guts.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 24, 2007 9:48:52 PM
Oh, and Logan -- since you didn't expect to find anybody in the media liking the format, my following post was probably a shock. Most people in the media probably liked that shtick a lot more than I did. But what you have to understand is that I don't like most of these debates, and the more they try to dumb them down to make them more "accessible" or whatever, the more offensive they are. Reality TV offends me. Stupidity offends me. A format that's more about the questioners posturing and having their 15 minutes than about substantive answers is extremely offensive.
Sure, you might get an unexpected answer to an unexpected question, but neither is likely to be terribly important. Politicians who do this 24/7 can much more easily manipulate an interaction with someone who's having his big moment than with someone who does this all the time. (Or at least, they seem to think so. Have you ever heard anything more condescending in your life than that "Certainly I think it's a very important question." Sometimes I think pols save that cliche for the very easiest questions, the easiest to dodge and manipulate -- like an expression of their satisfaction at not having anything they really have to engage.
But professionals can't get much out of candidates with 8 of them on the stage, either, which takes us back to Gail Collins' point.
You want public involvement? The "town hall" format can be much better. I don't say it WILL be, but it can be. Questioners who are facing the ones they're interrogating tend to be a lot more thoughtful and conscientious than someone who's trying to show how much attitude he can put into his YouTube performance.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 24, 2007 10:11:01 PM
Well, Brad, here's a place where you and I might actually agree on two things.
1) If we just walk away, why did we stay past capturing Hussein? Why drag a one-night stand out to feign a relationship if some sort of marriage, or at least an affair, was never a possibility?
2) The debate format was a joke, an embarrassment to the YouTubers posing the questions, CNN and the candidates. From a "power to the people" standpoint, the Democrats were hoist by their own petard. Stupid questions rarely elicit presidential answers.
Of course, one could argue that a truly presidential candidate would rise to virtually any occasion. But all the gnashing of tongues so far leads to the same conclusion former Clemson defensive coordinator wound up choking on when asked about the quality of his players, and America may have to stomach this time around with regard to the quality of its presidential hopefuls: "We got who we got."
God help us all.
Posted by: weldon VII | Jul 24, 2007 11:40:12 PM
Brad, do you really know the details of Halliburton's performance and the quality of their work? There is a lot of information available.
And I have to disagree with the way you state that Democrats show courage when they "tell the base it can't get what it wants", and that we cannot withdraw from Iraq. I know that you have stated your views on Iraq repeatedly in the past, and I know that you have cited the piece you wrote in 2003.
That you wrote a piece on the subject of Iraq in 2003, I am willing to concede without argument. Your argument that we must stay in Iraq, along with your assumption (if indeed you are making such an assumption) that we must stay in Iraq, I disagree with.
I understand what you're saying. I just disagree with it. Can you give me reasons in support of your argument?
Posted by: Tom Robinson | Jul 25, 2007 12:50:00 AM
I thought I said I don't care about Halliburton within the context of this discussion. I think thorough investigations should take their course. If they get off without punishment, I will not applaud. If they are stood up against a wall and shot for their crimes, I will not mourn. It is a matter of complete and utter indifference to the question of whether we have a commitment to Iraq that we must maintain.
NOt to slide too much into the condescending tone of your messages, but do YOU understand THAT?
Do you further understand that I have explained why we will be in Iraq for a long time over and over? But we have a cognitive barrier here. From the broadly known facts, it is painfully obvious to me.
But let me put it in terms that folks who opposed the war to begin with might understand: This mess is our responsibility. It is a mess that will immediately become worse if we leave it in anything like the current situation. This is not Vietnam, where a single adversary will quickly end the conflict (before starting the reign of retributions). Without the control rods of American power, the complex reactions would erupt into something far more dangerous for the whole region.
Now, either you nod and say, that's true. Or you do like bud and say things would be just fine. Neither of us can PROVE this future outcome to the other. But mine is based upon what I see in the world around me, today and historically, from the Balkans to much of the continent of Africa. I look at the differing agendas and interests of Iran, Turkey and Syria and what a weakened, fragmented Iraq without an American presence would present to them in terms of threats and opportunities.
Now, do you understand this? You should. I've done more to explain my position here than you did when you said you "disagree" about the necessity of our staying.
I'm pretty sure I understand YOU. But perhaps you can demonstrate that I'm wrong with an argument against the idea that we have a commitment we can't walk away from.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 25, 2007 7:06:37 AM
Brad, it's time to put up or shut up on Iraq. Show us with facts, evidence and sound reasoning why it's in America's national interests to continue with a project that costs $100 billion/year, 800+ American lives, 10,000/injured and sick soldiers each year. Facts man, facts. No more "it's irresponsible to withdraw". No more, "it takes courage to continue". No more articles about how we shouldn't "abandon the Iraqis".
The burden of proof is with the people who support the occupation not those who oppose it. Don't turn this around on the majority of Americans who do not want to support these costs any more. Show us how things are better now and how we'll be better still in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. Put up or shut up.
Posted by: bud | Jul 25, 2007 8:15:55 AM
Brad, Yes Halliburton. Of course people make fortunes during wartime. But this particular company is/was affiliated with a vice-president who has seemed to be all too in favor of this war. And it has an awful lot of unbid contracts. During the course of our conversations, I have pointed out how this war is going, and have asked you to either show me facts that that suggest we have the troops, the equipment, the money, or the cultural expertise to win this war or to suggest realistic alternatives. You have done neither. Everything I see, from the inability of our forces to meet recruiting goals, to the lack of needed equipment (like armored transport designed to survive road bombs), to an incredible deficit coupled with unmet needs in this country (eg. homeland security, education, mental health), combined with continued misunderstanding of the culture we're up against (don't even have enough translators) suggests that our best bet is to stop doing more damage, both to Iraq and to our own image as rogue nation (we look like an unprovoked aggressor here to most of the world). I really am interested in your information and your ideas, but I need to see something based on "what is" not on "when you wish upon a star."
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Jul 25, 2007 8:32:50 AM
For "your assumption that we must stay in Iraq", I should have said "your assumption that it is self-evidently obvious that we must stay in Iraq".
Posted by: Tom Robinson | Jul 25, 2007 8:56:11 AM
It's crystal clear that all Brad has is a "gut" feeling when it comes to Iraq.
Posted by: bud | Jul 25, 2007 10:24:52 AM
Well put, Tom. And that goes to the crux of our communication problem, highlighted by the most recent comments from Karen and bud. It is indeed "self-evidently obvious" to me -- from everything I've ever seen or read on the subject, and everything I've written.
That's why such comments as Tom's, and bud's "put up or shut up," cause me to just tear my hair out and say "what the hell do these jerks think I've been doing for four years?" To me, nothing has ever been said or presented that supports pulling out, or reassures me that pulling out would be anything but disastrous for this nation, its national security, and our ability to act effectively across the globe for the next 30 or 40 years. And the implications -- not the certainties, but the distinct possibilities -- to me would be even longer than that, when you consider that China could very well become the world's dominant force during this century, given a weakened, inward-turned U.S.)
And now Karen. Well, I can't get mad at Karen, because she's too civil.
I don't know what to tell you folks. And I don't know what anyone would say that would change your minds -- a newspaper from the year 2012, perhaps, or a history book from 50 years later? That probably wouldn't do it, either. What I would see as disastrous, you might see as acceptable. Or if we both saw disasters, we wouldn't agree that pulling out of Iraq was the cause.
You want fact, figures, numbers for the future? I've made it very clear that I have no such projections in mind. We simply have to stay committed to Iraq, constantly changing our approaches and tactics as circumstances demand, and there's no telling when it will be safe to move on. One sign would be that no one was demanding that we pull out any more. In fact, that might be the ULTIMATE sign.
But we just keep coming back to the fact that for me, it IS obvious.
Anyway, if you'd like to review the arguments, just go to the rail at right and click on the "Iraq" category and start reading. I see that the first thing that will greet you is the speech McCain recently made, which provided a pretty good summing-up of the situation. But there's plenty below that written by me. I don't know what else you want to know. But I suspect that there is nothing I could possibly tell you that would change your mind, and you're already quite certain of that.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 25, 2007 10:38:08 AM
For the sake of clarity: bud's last taunt on the subject crossed paths with my above comment.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 25, 2007 10:40:11 AM
Of course, I didn't think ALL of the debate was stupid. I liked "Mitch from Philadelphia's" question:
My question for all the candidates: How do we pull out now? And the follow-up, are we watching the same blankin' war? I certainly wasn't a big fan of the invasion/liberation. It sickens me to hear about soldiers wounded and getting killed daily, not to mention innocent Iraqis, but how do we pull out now? The government's shaky; bombs daily.
Don't you think if we pulled out now that would open it up for Iran and Syria, God knows who -- Russia -- how do we pull out now? And isn't it our responsibility to get these people up on their feet? I mean, do you leave a newborn baby to take care of himself? How do we pull out now?
Mitch made a lot of sense to me. But I assume he makes NO sense to Tom, bud and Karen. That cognitive gap again.
Here's a question: Do we really not see each others' points, or do we willfully refuse to? I think when we lose patience with each other, it's because we're suspecting the latter.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 25, 2007 11:23:31 AM
Do we really not see each others' points, or do we willfully refuse to?
-Brad
I understand your points. You are suggesting that staying in Iraq is in the best interests of U.S. security (defined by the number of Americans getting killed by terrorists). Apparently you believe a power vacuum would emerge that would be filled by Islam radicals or Iran. Somehow that would give them greater power to do mischief to our vital security interests. Further, you're saying the "surge" is working to bring stability to that country and it should continue indefinitely.
I just don't believe you've offered any evidence other than to keep re-stating these same points in somewhat diffent ways. Your supporting evidence amounts to nothing more than quoting right-wing talking points made by people like Charles Krauthamer and Kimberly Kagan. (Who basically support their arguments by quoting right wing talking points made by people like Brad Warthen).
Posted by: bud | Jul 25, 2007 1:10:31 PM
