I watched just a portion of the Democratic/youtube debate the other night and I liked what I saw. What I mean is that unlike other debates I've watched, in this one the questions came with context. Not the context that has Wolf Blitzer or Brian Williams or Judy Woodruff asking a question this way: "Bev and Al So and So, from Peoria, Illinois are middle class parents with 3 kids, and they're struggling to find affordable, quality health care. If you became President, how would you address their concerns?" In this debate, Bev and Al were asking the questions, and you could see a picture of their kids on the frig in the background, and Bev was holding her latest medical bill in her hand, and you could see Al's pinched face when we talked about how they were treated badly, etc.
I like bringing the personal into the political, because then I think it makes it tougher to offer answers full of cliches or empty rhetoric. It injects emotion and subjectivity into a process that is too often impersonal and calculated.
In other news, the Dixon Summer tour continues tomorrow with a nice 350 mile jaunt to San Diego. Back on Tuesday...
2 comments:
I hear what you're saying Rob - that if these debates are going to mean anything they've got to move past the cliches (you could start by not having 8 participants) - but I disagree that injecting emotion and subjectivity is the way to do it. I think that's where the empty rhetoric comes from. If Al and Bev want cheap health insurance, they want to hear "I feel your pain" or "I'm the candidate with the most hope for a better or America" or "When someone is hurt, the American government will move" (as W. once said).
And that may be what they need to hear at the moment, but what's good for the country is if they hear A) what legislation will be passed, specifically what the costs will be, what taxes will be raised to cover the cost (or programs will be cut), what ways their needs will still not be met, etc. or B)specifically why what they want is a bad idea for these reasons (cost, appropriate role, economic effects, etc).
That is, we need debates that are substantive. That can include "real people", but I think it means that candidates say "Here are the facts, and these are the reasons that you can or cannot get what you want." But that's not the same as an Emote-Off where the candidate that sympathizes the most strongly gets the win.
I liked the format, too. However, there were too many candidates to have each one answer the questions. We could have missed some quality answers...or some more gaffes.
Post a Comment