2008 Woodie Awards
The political age of YouTube
Jonathan Coley
Issue date: 9/12/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Last Wednesday night, during the latest Republican presidential debate, voters were finally able to discover the true difference between Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain. While McCain thinks the troop surge in Iraq is "working," Romney only thinks the surge in Iraq is "apparently working."
In other debate news, abortion is apparently unpopular with the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party is the party of atheism, surrender and open border chaos!
Yes, another presidential debate has come and gone, and once again, I've walked away only with an assurance that the Republican candidates know how to accurately recite Republican talking points with as little disagreement as possible. Once again, I'm left saddened at the state of political discourse in this country.
In this fabled age of YouTube (a company that is sponsoring two debates this year), candidates for president must put on a smile, make an audience laugh and describe the exact circumstances that would lead to war with Iran in a short 60-second sound bite. Nuance has become a dirty word - if you don't have a simple, black-and-white position on the Iraq war, illegal immigration or health care, you're labeled "weak" and "indecisive."
Gone are the days of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. In 1868, in a campaign for Senate, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas made a regular practice of debating for three solid hours on just one issue. These weren't the TV-friendly, back-and-forth style debates we have now, either. The first candidate would speak for one hour and the other candidate for an hour and a half, before the first candidate would finish the debate with a thirty-minute conclusion.
Boring as a debate like this may sound, surprisingly enough, people showed up, and we're still talking about the debates today! And while I'm not suggesting this would be the ideal format for a debate in the 21st century, I do have a few ideas on how the debates could be improved to allow for a fuller, more substantive debate on the issues.
In other debate news, abortion is apparently unpopular with the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party is the party of atheism, surrender and open border chaos!
Yes, another presidential debate has come and gone, and once again, I've walked away only with an assurance that the Republican candidates know how to accurately recite Republican talking points with as little disagreement as possible. Once again, I'm left saddened at the state of political discourse in this country.
In this fabled age of YouTube (a company that is sponsoring two debates this year), candidates for president must put on a smile, make an audience laugh and describe the exact circumstances that would lead to war with Iran in a short 60-second sound bite. Nuance has become a dirty word - if you don't have a simple, black-and-white position on the Iraq war, illegal immigration or health care, you're labeled "weak" and "indecisive."
Gone are the days of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. In 1868, in a campaign for Senate, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas made a regular practice of debating for three solid hours on just one issue. These weren't the TV-friendly, back-and-forth style debates we have now, either. The first candidate would speak for one hour and the other candidate for an hour and a half, before the first candidate would finish the debate with a thirty-minute conclusion.
Boring as a debate like this may sound, surprisingly enough, people showed up, and we're still talking about the debates today! And while I'm not suggesting this would be the ideal format for a debate in the 21st century, I do have a few ideas on how the debates could be improved to allow for a fuller, more substantive debate on the issues.
Be the first to comment on this story