Technology
Changes Political Campaigning.. Political
debates became part of the American electoral process with the famous
Lincoln-Douglas debates. With the advent of television, the concept
of debating between or among candidates became popular fare, wherein
the American public could see and hear candidates. Prior to this,
most voters were limited to newsreel cameos in the movie theaters,
still pictures and articles in newspapers, and scattered radio
addresses. A tiny sliver of the population were able to get a glimpse
of candidates s they toured the country to campaign among the people.
First
Televised Debates Determined Election Outcome .
The first nationally-televised presidential debates were the famous
Nixon-Kennedy debates in 1960. Kennedy's victory over Nixon in the
election was attributed by pundits to the performance of the two
candidates in the debates.
Debates
Become Part of the Political Mainstream.
In 1976, the non-partisan League of Women Voters became the official
sponsor of the presidential debates. During this time, they hosted
seven presidential debates. However, all of this was about to change.
Politics
Rears Its Ugly Head.
In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the
presidential debates, as described in a press release, parts of which
are cited below (emphasis is mine):
“The League of Women Voters is
withdrawing its sponsorship ... because the
demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud
on the American voter,"
"It has become clear to us
that the candidates' organizations aim
to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of
substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions,"
The
League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the
hoodwinking of the American public."
“... the campaigns presented the
League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before
the scheduled debate. The
campaigns' agreement was negotiated "behind closed doors"
and was presented to the League as "a done deal" ... its 16
pages of conditions not subject to negotiation.”
“Most objectionable ... were
conditions … that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the
proceedings ...” which
included “...
demands that they control the selection of questioners, the
composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other
issues.”
"The campaigns' agreement is a
closed-door masterpiece," . "Never in the history of the
League of Women Voters have two candidates' organizations come to us
with such stringent, unyielding and self-serving demands."
The League contended that the
debates could not serve the national interests because the two major
party's demands turned the debates into staged
and scripted performances.
The
Duopoly Dominates the Debates.
Their
coup complete, the two dominant parties coalesced on the formation of
a bi-partisan
Commission
on Presidential
Debates
(CPD) to
plan and control all “debates” from that time to the present. The
duopoly now owns,
operates,
and dictates almost every detail of the events.
They
meet secretly, develop their strategy in private, and make their
plans known only to the two controlling parties. Rarely, if ever, are
these plans made public, other than dates, locations,and general
subjects to be covered. On top of all that, the Commission is
accountable only to the political duopoly and has no obligation
whatsoever to the electorate it.seeks to influence.
Changing
the Rules to Eliminate Competition.
It
is intuitively obvious that the “debates” provide much-desired
exposure to candidates, and that it is virtually impossible for
anyone to be elected to the presidency without being included in
them. However, the CPD sets the rules for who can and who cannot
participate in the “debates” and have changed the rules over time
to virtually exclude any third-party candidates who might represent a
threat to their stranglehold on our government. For example, after
Ross Perot qualified in 1992, the CPD raised the requirement for
participation from a 5% poll rating in a specific group of polls to
15%, thereby excluding Perot, and depriving the people of exposure to
ideas outside the traditional thinking of our political duopoly.
A Lack
of Ideas Is a Lack of Options.
Voices
that can't be heard are voices of democracy lost. Without them, we
will never break the stranglehold of our two-party elite. The 15%
threshold is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, obstacle to
having a truly democratic election of a president. A full 76 percent
of registered voters supported Ross Perot’s inclusion in the 1996
debates, and 64 percent wanted Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan included
in the 2000 presidential debates. They all were excluded from the
debates by the duopoly-controlled CPD. (So much for the will of the
people in what is supposed to be a democratic society.) Yet,
many of the rights and privileges we enjoy today came about from
third-party
sources: the abolition of slavery, women’s right to vote, child
labor laws, public schools, direct election of senators, paid
vacations, unemployment compensation, social security, and the
formation of labor unions, and the right to collective bargaining.
The
Duopoly's Double Standard.
When
it comes to primary elections, however, there seems to be no minimum
barrier, and several candidates who have participated in this year's
events have had ratings as low as 1%. This smacks of a double
standard – one for candidates within the dominating parties and
another for independent or third-party candidates .This appear to be
just another of many very undemocratic policies.
From
Debate to Debacle.
Under
the CPD, the debates have degenerated from an intelligent and
informative discourse on issues affecting the country to being
political infomercials to showcase the two parties and their
platforms through their candidates. Candidates are depicted and
judged in these “debates” more based upon personality and
popularity, than on issues of substance.
Value
of Televised Debates.
True
presidential debates that are televised for the public to view are
arguably the most
influential
forum for voters. They can offer viewers the opportunity to
assess each candidate's position on various issues, side by side with
opposing views. However, instead of promoting an intelligent
discussion, the CPD produces only sound bites, rather than any true
information, by severely limiting the time of the candidates.
The candidates may complain about the time limitations, but it is
their party who established all the rules.
Debates
Can Make or Break a Candidate.
In this year's
events, we have already seen that happen with several candidates.
Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, both of whom were doing well at one
point in the campaign, are no longer in the campaign, mostly due to
gaffes, some of which have occurred during the "debates." The other candidates have seen their fortunes rise and fall at the whim of the debate viewers (although Herman Cain had other problems as well. All of the five candidates above have been both at the top and at the bottom of the polls, largely based upon their performance in the debates. Nowhere has the benefit of
debates been more dramatic than in the 1998 election for
governor of Minnesota. As a Reform Party candidate, Jesse Ventura's
poll numbers were around 10 % leading up to five televised debates.
During the course of the debates, his numbers rose and he eventually
won the election. Without the debates, he probably would never have
had a chance to be elected.
The Stark Reality.
As I see matters, these are the seven foremost issues that need to be
addressed:
- restoring our economy;
- creating jobs for the unemployed, the under-employed, and the returning military;
- stopping home foreclosures, with equitable measures for resolving outstanding debt;
- getting money out of politics through public campaign financing for all federal elections;
- getting large corporations and the wealthy to pay a more equitable share of the tax burden;
- implementing and enforcing controls on large financial institutions, including Wall Street;
- getting Congress to represent the people's interests, instead of big-money interests.
Compared to these issues, the item
of presidential debates ranks fairly low on the scale of importance.
However, it is just further evidence that we need to do something to
break up this political duopoly that has virtually total control over
our daily lives and our futures. In accomplishing the seven items
above, we will go a long way toward restoring democracy that can and
should lead to a reformation of our political systems, how elections
are to be conducted in a fair and democratic manner.
Coming Up:
No comments:
Post a Comment