Photo of GOP debate by Huffington Post
Last night many Americans tuned in to watch the second televised GOP debate on MSNBC. The debate was moderated by Brian Williams and John Harris. It featured eight candidates: Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, and Herman Cain.
The debate premiered at 8pm ET/ 5pm PT. What else was on TV at that time? There was a new Big Brother on CBS and an all-new Minute to Win It on NBC. There were, as always, countless reruns including America’s Next Top Model and Modern Family. Easy to watch, entertaining, funny, exciting TV. So why tune in to a debate between cheesing politicians that promises to be less than satisfying?
Ideally in a debate, actual arguments unfold. Candidates would use logic, facts and a pinch of emotional appeal to score points and to show a clear advantage over each other. They would call each other out for issues that relate to the questions at hand instead of sneaking in cheap shots at each other for matters completely unrelated to running for president.The cream of the crop would be able to be extremely specific and not speak in vageries. (I immediately dock candidates for re-using tired media phases like “a bureaucrat in the examining room,” for example.)
Watch the entire GOP debate on MSNBC here.
Of course, as last night and pretty much every large debate like it demonstrates, the reality is far from the ideal. Last night in the Reagan Presidential Library, there were noble moments and there were complete eye-rollers. When asked about his job creation record, Romney was prepared with plenty of specific facts about his experience that put his history in the private sector in a good light. On the other hand, Perry’s fumbling answer regarding global warming, saying that it is “more and more being put into question” by scientists that he could not name, was an obvious appeal to profit-minded business folks who are looking for a candidate who is not going to add any green taxes or additional regulations to their overhead. (A statement Politifact.com rated false.)
The GOP debates are worth watching if what you want is a lively intellectual challenge instead of watching fifteen young women compete to be a “top model” that is never seen or heard from again in the fashion world. Or whatever. Of course, that “intellectual challenge” is not going to be what you actually see and hear during the debate. Rather, the challenge comes from your interaction with the debate. If you pause and think about what the candidates are saying, why they are saying it, who it appeals to, the veracity of their statements, etc.– that is a real learning exercise.
I definitely recommend Politifact.com as a great fact-checker for these events. For extra credit, read up on opinions about the debate the next day and try to put your response to it into words, whether you blog them, talk about them over coffee or just post a simple Facebook or Twitter update. If this type of thinking really appeals to you, consider taking a course in Public Policy or Political Science.
