Home > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
-
Redemption or Renaissance?
Guest: Cole Campbell, Dean of the Donald W. Reynolds School of Journalism, University of Nevada - Reno In between the second and third presidential debates, there was a flurry of blogosphere-driven chatter about a suspicious bulge in President Bush's suit coat during the second debate. A photo showing telltale shadows on the president's back was blown up, analyzed, explained away by the White House tailor, speculated about by everyone else drawn to the idea of conspiracy. Was this some device by which the president's handlers -- presumably people smarter than him, or at least with better syntax -- could coach the president to a more palatable performance in the debate? Was this whole contretemps a clever ruse by White House insiders to divert public discussion from substantive matters of war, jobs, the environment and schooling? What gives speculation over a shadow on a jacket such resonance -- besides our national appetite for conspiracy theories -- is that it fits with what we know about the deterioration of public discourse. Candidates are not free to speak their minds, bare their souls or open their hearts. They are assigned -- by handlers, pollsters, pundits, press commentators and others -- two specific roles: Consolidate and mobilize their base of supporters, and persuade as many undecided voters to align with them. Vision is reduced to a memorable metaphor -- President Reagan's "morning in America," President Clinton's "bridge to the future." So however disappointing it may be that the final presidential debate was reduced to redundant mantras and rhetorical semaphore signals, it's not surprising. It's the embodiment of a cynical kind of pragmatism. This is what the political elite knows from experience moves poll numbers and shifts momentum in the days leading up to balloting. What we need is a return to the older, nobler pragmatism -- the kind Rich encounters on Wisconsin public radio, in conversations with community leaders, in reflecting on community desires in a place like Las Vegas. This pragmatism is a search for solutions to real public problems, not a search for competitive advantage in an electoral contest. We can blame the candidates, and hope they can redeem themselves, or we can accept responsibility to use our own work, our own professions, our own institutions to reclaim public discourse. That's what Rich is doing through the work of the Harwood Institute -- and even through this blog. Are the rest of us doing the same? It's not two politicians who need redemption, but a system of political conversation and decision-making that needs to be reborn. The shadow we need to worry about is not on candidates' clothing but on our own political culture. -
Falling Apart
Guest Matthew Yglesias, Blogger and Staff Writer, The American Propsect
To semi-defend our candidates, I think the focus on domestic policy wound up showing us more about the limitations of the debate format than of the two men on the stage. As long as the moderator kept the focus on social issues -- abortion, homosexuality, etc. -- and the fuzzy stuff at the end, both were relatively appealing. I don't find Bush's evangelical worldview appealing, but I'm coming to understand it, and I think he explained it well. Kerry's harder task of explaining the role of the faithful leader with a vision of secular political was also well done.
It was when you got down to the nitty-gritty of economic policy that things fell apart, but how could they not fall apart? Two minutes -- or 90 seconds for a reply -- isn't anywhere close to enough time to lay out a theory of international trade economics and a reasonable policy response to it. The difficulty is only heightened because, in the nature of things, the candidates needed to not only outline a policy answer, but also come across as empathetic. Bush's basic take on globalization, that there's nothing he as president can't do to stop it except try to make the next generation better prepared to deal with it, is a reasonably coherent (if, I think, wrongheaded) position, but it's a political disaster. You simply aren't allowed in American politics to say something like that. So on his second go-through Bush resorted to the preposterous claim that No Child Left Behind is a jobs program.
Kerry, meanwhile, got tagged with a question on social security that embedded a set of demographic and economic predictions from the Department of Health and Human services that are supposed to extend 75 years into the future. To begin to answer the question intelligently, one would need to lay out the assumptions that motivated it first and say something about where they may or may not go wrong. Doing that alone would have taken up all his time, so instead he just kind of batted the question away. The postgame commentators I saw on television all described the debate as "wonky" which makes me wonder if they've ever spoken about these issues to actual wonks. They're just extremely complicated, they involve lots of numbers, and one typically needs some slides or a powerpoint or something to put them all together.
So rather than despair of the candidates, I wonder what could be done to rethink the campaigning process. The televised debate format is a rather arbitrary legacy of the 1960s, and I doubt anyone truly finds it a useful way to better understand the political process or the choices facing the country.
-
The Right Man, Right Time, Right Place
Richard C. Harwood, President, The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation
For me, the second presidential debate sounded almost like a real debate, until I awoke from my slumber and realized what was happening. The two candidates spun their talking points bravely but the campaign – despite people’s interest and engagement across the nation – remains stuck in place for now. But there is an alternate path. Here’s what I mean. The candidates have successfully gotten people’s attention in recent weeks. For instance, millions of us have been glued to our television sets watching the three debates. But now that we’re watching, all we got on Friday night were two men strutting across a stage imploring us to believe their exhortations, auctioning off tax cuts and new programs to satisfy us, and dutifully attacking one another to prove their mettle. None of these debating points helped tell us anything more than we already had come to know, which hasn’t been enough to engender our confidence and hope. The candidates and this campaign are mired in their own talking points and attack lines. It’s a tired routine that washes over us and fails to take us anywhere – to help us see who we are and what we can become. All this activity numbs us, despite our interest and belief that this election is important. We wish for more. So, here’s what I want them to do. Tell us for once what their heart says. Tell us what kind of America they seek to lead and help create. Tell us what we as people need to do, and what our obligations are to one another. This isn’t so much about policies and numbers; instead, it requires absolute clarity about underlying values and aspirations, about motivations and the reasons why they would endure such hardship to run for the presidency.
To follow this path would require each man to get off their talking points and delve into their souls. They would need to trust themselves enough to rely on their own sense of mission. We saw fleeting glimpses of this genuine passion on Friday night – when Senator Kerry discussed the Patriot Act, and when the President discussed the preciousness of human life – but we deserve to see much more. Then maybe these candidates could shake us from our impasse and help us to see a different future. I know that the candidates and their handlers want most of us to remain in place so they can argue over the last few undecided voters. But this year they have an opportunity for people to say, “Yes, this is the right man, for the right time, at the right place.” -
Asking How
Guest: Jehmu Greene, President, Rock The Vote
I thought one of the most interesting aspects of the debate was the way its as-yet-undecided audience of voters made themselves, and their issues, heard. They weren’t timid, apathetic, or wishy-washy. They were concerned, committed, and intelligent. I think the debate served to remind us that the undecided populace in this election aren’t necessarily “few,” and that their interests and their votes certainly can’t be discounted.
Rich has a strong point in calling for the candidates’ heartfelt visions instead of the well-worn talking points at which we’re starting to roll our eyes. But they must be careful to be specific as well. If both candidates spent the debates proclaiming their hearts’ desires, we’d probably end up hearing the same speech twice: a stronger, more free America, both at home and internationally, an efficient and reasonable withdrawal of troops from a stabilized Iraq, clean air, affordable healthcare, cures for cancer, etc. It’s not the dreams that set these candidates apart, it’s the methods they use to pursue them.
Which makes me grateful for the diversity and directness of that night’s town-hall audience and their questions. In the ways that “undecided” voters can most effectively (read: most openly) phrase them, each question helped illuminate the candidates’ visions of what they consider to be strength, freedom, ethical soundness, and how to achieve these ideals. Some of the issues raised were refreshingly specific (abortion, embryonic stem-cell research), others were helpfully geared toward pulling the grand schemes of these campaigns into focus. The very first question, for example, asked Kerry to explain whether he considered himself wishy-washy, allowing him to clearly address the one character attack the Bush administration seems to think will convince Americans that Kerry is unfit for the presidency.
One key moment was Charles Gibson repeatedly pushing the candidates to explain how they intend to cut the deficit in half: “I have heard you both say… that you're going to cut the deficit by a half in four years. But I didn't hear one thing in the last three and a half minutes that would indicate how either one of you do that.” Granted, what followed was the standard tax-cut debate, but you have to give Gibson credit for asking “how?,” trying to investigate the steps to accomplishing the dream.
Another highlight came from a question regarding the draft: “Mr. President, since we continue to police the world, how do you intend to maintain our military presence without reinstituting a draft?” Kerry did a nice job of acknowledging the problem, citing current military officials who agree that we are short on troops, and promising to work multilaterally to build alliances that will add much-needed manpower. The practicality of this plan, of course, remains to be seen. Bush briefly discussed moving troops around and equipping them with high-tech equipment before telling America, “Now, forget all this talk about a draft. We're not going to have a draft so long as I am the president.” This kind of statement undermines people’s desire for a political discussion. Rock the Vote will continue to respect and inform the public’s demand for information on this crucial issue.
Unfortunately, it appears that the candidates are so tied to their talking points that they aren’t appreciating the nuances of the questions, which results in an inevitable disconnect between the candidates and their would-be constituencies. In the next three weeks, expect to see voters, especially the young and the undecided voters, push the candidates to explain the “how?” The man with the most detailed and straightforward answers to back up his vision will win the presidency. -
Surviving the Game
Guest: Rita Kirk, Chair of the Corporate Communications and Public Affairs Program, Southern Methodist University
I had an interesting opportunity last Friday night. Rather than watching the debate on television, I listened on XM Radio as I traveled. My sixteen year old son and I had a great opportunity to listen, free from visual distractions and to interpret meaning based solely on verbal expression. In many ways, I felt like a part of that mythic event during the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960 where the winner and loser were viewed differently depending on the medium used. This debate was certainly hard-hitting. As my son remarked, it was as entertaining as watching a football game. That is true if you had a candidate in the "game" that you were rooting for (or against). Yet what I found disturbing about the event was that there seemed to be little connection on the part of either candidate to the listeners or an effort to elevate the debate. Debaters are taught to "attack the proposition not the opposition." It's not nearly as entertaining but certainly more informative. These attacks and counter-attacks do little to permit a vetting of the issues. During the final debate, Americans would be well served if the candidates would give full attention to the values and policies that would guide their administrations, if elected. Voters cannot guess what issues the next president will face. What the candidates can do is tell us how they approach issues and what guides them in their decision process. If future policy reflects what happened in Friday's debate, Americans will hear a lot about who is to blame and little about what sacrifice needs to be made to resolve the problems we will face. -
Water, Water Everywhere
Guest: Cole Campbell, Dean of the Donald W. Reynolds School of Journalism, University of Nevada - Reno
There are others beyond themselves that the candidates probably would need to trust in order for them to follow the admirable path that Rich suggests.
Take my professional domain: the news media. Journalist Matt Bai discusses John Kerry’s reluctance to spell out his nuanced approach to foreign policy in the post-9/11 world in Bai’s cover story in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, “Kerry’s Undeclared War.” This simple exchange, and how Bai interprets it, is telling:''What kind of water do you drink?'' I asked, trying to make conversation.
''Plain old American water,'' he said.
''You mean tap water?''
''No,'' Kerry replied deliberately. He seemed now to sense some kind of trap. I was left to imagine what was going through his head. If I admit that I drink bottled water, then he might say I'm out of touch with ordinary voters. But doesn't demanding my own brand of water seem even more aristocratic? Then again, Evian is French -- important to stay away from anything even remotely French.
''There are all kinds of waters,'' he said finally. Pause. ''Saratoga Spring.'' This seemed to have exhausted his list. ''Sometimes I drink tap water,'' he added.
After months of having his every word scrutinized by reporters and mocked by Republicans, Kerry appeared to sense danger in the most mundane of places.
If candidates can’t even order water in front of a reporter without feeling on the precipice of a trap, it’s unlikely they will unburden themselves publicly on matters of deepest conviction. We can blame the candidates for not being made of sterner stuff, but that’s too easy. I think we can blame other institutions for channeling discourse into a meaning-sapping mélange of image cues (Drinks Evian! Drinks Saratoga Springs! Drinks tap water!).
If we want candidates to engage us directly and fully, we need our institutions of public discourse – the news media chief among them – engaging both candidates and citizens directly and fully.
-
Truth, Ambiguity & the Pursuit of Leadership
Richard C. Harwood, President, The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation As I watched last night’s vice-presidential debate it was enormously revealing about the fundamental challenge Americans confront in this election: which truth to believe. Both candidates, both campaigns, and voters on all sides have talked passionately about the “distortions” in this campaign. There are too many to count. But the argument over these distortions fails to pinpoint our real dilemma.
After the first presidential debate I wrote about the clash between competence and certitude. Beneath this clash rests competing narratives about the state of the nation and our work abroad. We could see these competing narratives at work last night. How well is the war in Iraq going? How much progress have we made in ensuring that no child is left behind in our public schools? To what extent have we provided health care to all Americans? How well are American communities protected from future terrorist attacks? On each topic, there is a set of competing facts. And even though these facts are often distorted for partisan gain, the problem is that both sets hold some truth. They create different storylines which appeal to different versions of reality. This competition is most acute during significant periods of change when it becomes difficult to sort out how much progress has been made, and what remains to be done. It can be hard to see if any hope is in the offing. So, for now, two narratives about our current state of affairs co-exist, each one competing for our attention and validation. So long as these narratives are allowed to remain separate, they will clash. The campaign then boils down not to which candidate we like better or who has the better programs, but which story feels more right or comfortable about ourselves and the nation. For now we are stuck with these separate and equal narratives. They lead the nation to greater division as people choose their plots. Only by joining these two competing stories, and helping people interpret their meaning and see how we can move beyond the divides, is it possible to transcend the differences. But truth be told: that would require leadership. -
Of Truth and Fiction
Guest: Jehmu Greene, President, Rock The Vote
These days, it’s a given that there are elements of truth and fiction on both sides of any issue. Campaigns often exploit these ambiguities both to idealize their candidates and lampoon their opponents. But this is not the kind of debate the people of America, and especially the young people of America, need or want.
Young voters (18-30 years old) aren’t as set in their ways politically as older voters. They are not committing to political parties the way they are committing to the issues at stake in this election. Young voters are far more likely than other demographics to change sides based on the ideals and visions that the candidates present. They want the candidates to show them the big picture and how it affects them, not isolated statistics and sound bytes. And they know the difference. Young voters want and deserve to hear the good, bad, and the ugly; after all, they will have to live and work with the repercussions of today’s choices.
What the debates are lacking in candor, they make up for in factoids of questionable veracity. Young voters probably didn’t buy it when Vice President Cheney said he’d never met Senator Edwards, and Edwards missed an opportunity to present a verifiable truth and question the Vice President’s motives in misrepresenting him. It was a significant moment for me, because while Cheney attempted to defame Edwards’ character, his work ethic, which could be a big-picture issue for young voters, he did it by transparently lying. Any weight his accusation could have had was negated by its speciousness, and we had yet another sound byte that failed to resonate.
When Edwards argued that 90% of coalition forces that have died in Iraq were American, Cheney responded that Iraqi forces constitute 50% of the dead. The debate of semantics that followed (does Iraq count as a member of the “coalition of the willing”?) obscured one indisputable truth that neither campaign seems to want to acknowledge: 80% of American troops in Iraq are under the age of 35. After Congress conducted a phony vote on the draft bill earlier in the day, neither candidate addressed the growing concern young Americans have about who is going to fight on the front lines in a war that has been described by Condoleezza Rice as lasting a lifetime.
These are the people fighting and dying in this war, and who are worried about being drafted. These are the people who are losing healthcare coverage at staggering rates, who are leaving college with a debt burden that approaches the size of that of the average American family. These are the people for whom the issues are everything, and these young people will turn out to vote. Whom they vote for depends entirely on who shows them the big picture, the clearest facts with the least spin, and with the respect this powerful, informed young electorate has earned this year.
-
Hunched Shoulders, Fluttering Eyelids
Guest: Cole Campbell, Dean of the Donald W. Reynolds School of Journalism, University of Nevada - Reno
Rich's notion that we have to sort through competing sets of facts, or facts that don't quite add up to a coherent whole, is an important insight into political life. In the case of the vice presidential debate, it's also a bit of making lemonade out of lemons. In strong constrast to the first presidential debate, which was largely about substantive policy disagreements and the underlying narrative of certainty v. competence, the vice presidential debate was waged as a series of attempts to puncture and bleed the other side. All debates have strategic objectives: To win the debate, if there is a mechanism for declaring a winner; to resolve a policy dispute in a formal policy-making process, or, in the case of electoral debates, to persuade voters that one side is superior to the other. Since the vice presidential debate is the undercard in this forensic tournament, the two camps felt freer to use this squareoff to drain credibility or authority from the opposing camp. So fragmented facts -- about Halliburton's corporate failings, about Senator John Edwards' spotty Senate attendance while he's been campaigning, about every other arguable blemish -- are fired in shotgun-like barrages in response to questions that had nothing to do with these topics. Vice President Dick Cheney, with a slight hunch in his shoulders, seemed grumpy and put out. Senator Edwards, fluttering his eyelids throughout every answer, seemed uncomfortable either with what he was saying or with the strategy he was asked to pursue. Their body language spoke for me, because this debate left me grumpy, put out and uncomfortable with what both candidates were trying to accomplish. -
The Real Debate
Richard C. Harwood, President, The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation
The pundits were proven wrong, the candidates did engage, and the people won. Now we have a genuine race and a clear choice.
What was so evident to me last night was a clash in narratives between certitude and competence.
President Bush offered the candidacy of certitude. Throughout the debate, he consistently used words and phrases such as: “liberty, tyranny, freedom, precious, change the world, duty, keep our word, stand with you, injustice, resolve, steadfast, going to win.” It was a language of a Bush religion of public affairs, as if he was reading from its very prayer book.
Senator Kerry, on the other hand, presented the vision of competence. He infused his answers with such words and terms as: “getting the job done, my plan, get it right, diplomacy, alliances, realities, change the dynamics, reaching out, make sense, look you in the eye.” This is a language of someone who derives hope from hard work.
The question for Americans increasingly is which vision best reflects your values and engenders your trust? Which approach do you believe will bring about results we can live with? What kinds of risks are you willing to take?
For once, the two men did all Americans a favor. They were last night, for the most part, straight, clear-headed, and forthright. You may not have agreed with them, but you can see where they stand.
Now, we Americans should applaud them. Notwithstanding the silliness that ensued after the political conventions, we still have five weeks to have a meaningful campaign. Let’s tell them that last night we finally got a peek of the campaign we deserve and seek. -
Young and Strong - But Ignored
Guest: Jehmu Greene, President, Rock The Vote
The candidates were clear and forthright on many fronts, and their differing policies with regard to the arenas of homeland security and foreign policy have been highlighted well enough, except for one area: the impact of war on the young people of America.
President Bush promised an “all-volunteer army,” while Senator Kerry briefly mentioned a “backdoor draft taking place in America today.” They told anecdotes about devastated parents and widows and poorly equipped soldiers. While they sounded sympathetic and troubled by the situation at hand, neither of them spoke directly to young people’s concerns or specifically addressed the prospect of a draft. What will happen when we run out of volunteers?
The candidates need to start acknowledging the new generation of voters as the political and voting force that they are. Young people are showing an unprecedented level of engagement in this election cycle: 74% of them think that this is one of the most, if not the most, important elections in their lifetime. 20 million young people will turn out to vote on November 2nd, and both candidates missed a key opportunity to pull them to their sides last night. This opportunity exists in the debates ahead, where candidates will be able to focus on the domestic issues that weigh heavily on young people’s minds: jobs and the rising cost of tuition.
In terms of individual performance, Kerry’s showing may give him a stronger foothold with young voters, who had supported him by as many as 20 points up but have been leaning toward Bush in recent polls. Young people may respond to the strength of his participation by starting to swing his way, which is another clear example of how this voting bloc can and will be the swing vote -
A Sigh of Relief
Guest: Veronica De La Garza, Executive Director, Youth Vote Coalition
I was hoping for the best but expected the worst. It started on Wednesday night. A friend called me to say that he had just seen WWE’s Smackdown Your Vote wrestlers on Hardball and they were amazing. He could not believe how articulate and passionate they were when discussing politics and debating on issues of concern to young people. Hmmm…..I started flipping through CNN and MSNBC and my heartbeat was up! Behind all the anchors, on location at the University of Miami, are young people. A lot of them!
They are excited, jumping up and down, holding Bush, Kerry and Nader signs, and we still had 22 hours to go. I was excited, but scared. I stayed up watching the pre-debate coverage. I couldn’t help it. Behind every anchor were tons of young people and only young people. Young people excited about the candidates, about the debate. The group that has been labeled as apathetic for years is on my TV screen. MSNBC is reporting on how hundreds of the University of Miami students wrote essays in hopes of winning one of six tickets to be in the audience of the debate. There are 48 Million 18-30 year olds and they are 23% of the voting age population.
I cannot help but be proud of the work our Coalition members have done to register young voters. I know that we will meet our goal. 20 Million young people will be voting on November 2, but I also know that young people want the truth, no dancing around questions. They were going to watch the debate, but what would happen if the debate was not a debate but a 90 minute scripted commercial? My fear brought me to my starting statement, “I was hoping for the best but expected the worst.” After Jim Lehrer asked his first questions, I breathed. And as I watched the 90 minute debate I smiled because I agree with Rich when he wrote, “The pundits were proven wrong, the candidates did engage, and the people won.” Viva clash!
-
Beyond the Soundbite
Guest: Rita Kirk, Chair of the Corporate Communications and Public Affairs Program, Southern Methodist University
The first presidential debate is always the most important one. After that, viewership typically falls off by about ten million viewers. After watching last night’s debate, I wonder if that data will hold true. At long last, a presidential debate was not so much about a winner and a loser as it was about differing choices – although the pollsters will try to lead us to believe differently. Richard is correct in his assessment that this debate meant something. Perhaps it will mean that voters will tune in to the upcoming debates after all.
Last night was a break-through in debates of this sort since one-liners neither dominated the candidate’s responses nor the following news coverage. As a life-long student of political rhetoric, and co-editor of a book entitled Soundbite Culture: The Death of Discourse in a Wired World, I am heartened to see that the candidates and their consultants are beginning to see that you can say a lot in ninety seconds, that it doesn’t have to be political pabulum, and that words matter. Richard noted as much in his comments as he teased out the value words used by each candidate.
Those who follow the campaigns closely know that the candidates’ responses were not new. Most of the comments were parts of recent stump speeches. Yet this was the first chance for voters to see the candidates side by side and hear the competing views issue by issue. Further, it was the first time that voters got to listen to more than soundbites but rather listen without commentary or journalistic interpretation what the candidates had to say to us. In that sense it was instructive for us all. -
A Clash of Messages
Guest: Cole Campbell, Dean of the Donald W. Reynolds School of Journalism, University of Nevada - Reno
Nowadays, "staying on message" is the touchstone of political discourse for presidential candidates. Both George Bush and John Kerry excelled at staying planted on their messages in the first presidential debate Thursday night. I agree with Rich that, in this case, staying on message helped crystallize the choice offered by the two candidates. Neither candidate assailed the other on the overworked and underdeveloped grounds of "character," even when moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS's "Newshour" threw out a baited question. The candidates were mostly gracious and civil toward each other, and their respective families. But they didn't shy away from contrasting themselves. Even as George Bush intoned a message of certainty in describing himself, he also worked to frame his opponent as the embodiment of uncertainty and bearer of "mixed messages." And just as John Kerry made the case for competence, he also made clear his contention that the incumbent's course fails the competency standard and that unyielding certainty can be a liability when course corrections are required. The key word, which Rich uses, is clash. (Clash is a term that high school and college debaters, coaches and judges use -- I know because I was all of the above in my salad days.) As a forum for political or policy discourse, debate works best when the debaters' arguments clash. Clash entails offering arguments that connect to each other, showing the connection and extending the line of argument until one side prevails in reasoning or supporting evidence. Of course, debates that are part of a presidential election are not decided by dispassionate judges weighing reasoning and evidence. Rich reminds us that we are the ultimate judges who weigh these arguments using the counterweights of our own values and aspirations.
I think we should give credit to Jim Lehrer for sustaining clash. Lehrer extended the time allotted to the candidates on several questions to let them rebut one another's contentions, putting a finer point on how they differ. He never tried to show off his command of the issues or divert attention to himself. He kept the focus on the candidates and their differences. I can't say I learned a lot I didn't already know. I can't say I changed my preferences. But, to return to Rich's theme of a "religion of public affairs," I can say I felt like a congregant in an important, enriching ritual that affirmed the importance of understanding, embracing and -- ultimately, but not necessarily through debating or balloting -- working through political difference to pursue a common course. See you next week in the temple of democracy. -
Debate DOA?
Richard C. Harwood, President, The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation
Many commentators have been saying that tonight’s debate won’t matter. They’ve pronounced the debate dead on arrival, especially due to its format, the post-debate spin they anticipate, and the candidates’ unwillingness to be forthright.
While there may be some truth to these critiques, they create a deeper problem for America. Their dismissive tone spreads a narrative that we ought not to take these debates seriously. In turn, many people may not watch tonight or will reflexively discount the results. Americans are anxious about the direction of the nation. They want a leader who can provide a vision for the future, outline the necessary steps to achieve it, and provide a sense of personal and common security.
I agree that tonight’s debate format is unconscionable – a result of politics as usual and meek candidates. But spinning a narrative of futility only breeds further disengagement.
Here’s what I think we should do about tonight’s debate:-
1.Watch the debate – the more people who
watch, the more the candidates will get the
message that people care. Then they will be
more likely to give us what we need.
2.Tune out the spin – don’t listen to all the spin and noise after the debates. Sleep on it and see what you think in the morning.
3.Talk to your friends – talk to people tomorrow about what they heard and saw. Make sure to find people who have differing opinions from your own. Too often we just confirm own beliefs by talking to people with whom we already agree.
4.Do some legwork – use the Harwood Barometer for Political Conduct as you watch the debate tonight. It will help you get past all the silliness and determine if you think the candidates are genuinely speaking to you and the nation.
I don’t like the way this campaign is unfolding. But tonight’s debate is important and we shouldn’t simply dismiss it because it doesn’t meet all of our expectations.
We should step up and watch.
And please join me here tomorrow, and the day after each debate. I’ll be joined by some fantastic guests who will help you spur your thinking, and offer a civic-minded perspective you won’t find in the spin cycle of regular debate analysis. Guest bloggers will include:- Cole Campbell, dean of the Donald
W. Reynolds School of Journalism, University
of Nevada - Reno
Veronica De La Garza, Executive Director of The Youth Vote Coalition
Jehmu Greene, President of Rock The Vote
Rita Kirk, specialist in political communication and Chair of the Corporate Communications & Public Affairs Division, Southern Methodist University
Matthew Yglesias, Blogger and staff writer at The American Prospect
I’m looking forward to their comments, and I hope you will check back often to add your own voice.