Get Us Talking

not quite cicero

I'm fairly excited about today's post, because while I am often preoccupied by competitive public speaking or by presidential politics, it is rare that I get to talk about both. That said, in the past few weeks we have seen both the Deomcrats and the Republicans hold the first debates of their primary seasons, and thus it seemed approrpiate to write about the notion of debate and political discourse. Before I do, though, here's a 30 second summary of discourse and democracy in the West. In the Western tradition the notion of competition among ideas is a fundamental one. Homer's Oddyseus, for instance, at one point declares

One man may fail to impress us with his looks
but a god can crown his words with beauty, charm
and men can look on with delight when he speaks out
Never faltering, filled with winning self control
he shines forth at the assembly grounds and people gaze
at him like a god when he walks through the streets

Beyond demonstrating the ancient origins of GDS, this passage indicates the deep cultural attraction this idea has held . Over the ensuing millenia our notion of debate and discourse kept gaining traction, with advents like the freedom of the press expanding its role ( for an awesome defence of the free press, check out John Milton's Areopagitica (Milton of Paradise Lost fame)). When founded, America was largely based upon the principles of free exchange of ideas , as seen in the first amendment. Hooray!

Having brought everyone up to speed, we can now turn to the idea of the presidential debate in America. The notion that presidential elections have been determined by such contests is a long one, running from Lincoln-Douglas to Bush-Kerry. But while the influence of the debates has been relatively constant, it intuitively seems that the converstaion has been...well..dumbed down. Somehow, between "fourscore and seven years ago" and "flip-flop", it feels like we've lost our way. Sadly, this hunch is one that has been empirically verified. In 2000, the Flesch-Kincaid reading scale, a widely accepted test of verbal sophistication, was applied to the presidential debates of the past 2 centuries. While most everything from Lincoln-Douglas to Franklin Roosevelt occured at a 12th grade level , by the era of Reagan it had dipped to 10th grade and by 2000, both Bush and Gore spoke at less than the level of an 8th grader (with Bush speaking at a 6th grade level in the third contest). So, while our democracy is generating fantastic practice for "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader", we are hemmoraging our ability to consider ideas.


Lincoln subsequnetly dropped on a 3-2

Of course, there are many reasons for this, the most obvious being the introduction of television, the internet, and other such tools. But whatever the reason, the effects are highly pernicious. If a real contest of ideas does not occur, and if the presidential debates don't actually allow those ideas to be explored, it seems that the very notion of voting as a reliable mechanism for choice may be questionable.

But can anything be done? Yes and no. On one hand, the genie is out of the bottle in terms of sound-bite media and the youtube era. No one will ever sit for a 3 hour rhetorical contest on the Fundmanetal Rights of Man when they have access to Peekvid, and I think that's something we have to accept. Yet although the media is largely to blame for the steady drop in the level of discourse, it may also provide the solution. Today there are a few ideas which I think should be seriously considered in order to make sure that ideas are properly seen and compared, and that vital demorcatic process can survive the age of "Dick in a Box". The first, and perhaps most important, is to make sure that full videos of the debates are posted online. This seems like a no brainer, since it would ensure that the information already out there is better disseminated and that sound bites have at least some context for those who want it. While some would argue that no one would watch the debates in their entirety online, I think people are far more likely to tune in and do so intellgiently if, say, given articles linked to the relevant segment of videotape. While this seems like a no-brainer, as of now news companies are not required to put the deabtes into the public domain or the public commons. To date, this has drawn the protest of Obama, Edwards, Dodd, and others, but it remains to be seen if the networks will respond.

Second, and more intriguing, is a call being made by Newt Gingrich, among others, for a series of 9 presidential debates to be held on Sundays in 2008 . Called the 9 Sundays plan, the series would be spread across the 9 major networks ( ) and would focus each round on a different policy issue (ex. Iraq, healthcare). Such a plan would create far more clash between candidates and would ensure that ideas compete more rigorously than in the status quo. Additionally, because they would take place on Sundays, they would allow the candidates to campaign during the week before resting for their national performances. Finally, by spreading the debates out across various networks the potential commerical loss would be defrayed to a very managable 90 minutes per organization. At this point, some would argue that wider access and frequency wouldn't neccesarily mean higher discourse. That said, the format of a 90 minute debate on a single issue is such that eventually, soundbites will run out and someone will have to say something. When one has 2 minutes to talk about Iraq, they can mumble out something about "keeping America strong" and move on. When they need to spend 90, they would need to express their views on sectarian tension, oil revenues, the impact and role of Kurdistan, the economic impact to the region, the exact state of the Iraqi army, and a host of other issues. Put another way, they would be virtually forced to prove their policy mettle. Many of the candidates in this field are remarkably intelligent and articulate, and I feel that such exchanges would allow people like Bill Richardson or Barack Obama a chance to demonstrate the sort of skills that would make them a superb commander in chief. Alternatively, it seems highly unlikely that George Bush would be in office today if he had to justify the war in Iraq based on 90 minues of substantive policy conversations.

Seems like a win win. So why hasn't anyone thought of this before? Actually, they have. In 1991 the 9 Sundays plan was proposed, but was dismissed both because candidates wanted to maintain contorl of their message and networks didn't want to give up their time. That said, there are several reasons why the dynamics on the ground have or can be changed. First off, in the youtube era, control over message has slipped so much that a candidates performance in a debate gives him a relatively high degree of power over what reaches the people (vs. say, Macaca). Additionally, in a hyperactive 24 news cycle I can't imagine that many would turn down the chance at so much uninterrupted (and free) national air time. And this isn't just theory; Rudy Giuliani has already pledged his supprot the program, and Tim Russert has promised to confront candidates about it whenever they appear on his show. And from the networks perspective the rise of new media and the internet has meant that if they are to stay relevant, changes are needed. Fortunatly, by hosting such debates, the networks could re-center themselves and regain their importance and prominence vs. other, newer forms of media which have threatened their control (Such as Boundless Rationality steadily cutting into the viewership of CBS, NBC, Fox News, and the Spice Channel). Furthermore, if this is not incentive enough, it seems there is a case for the government to step in and subsidize the debates on national networks. Government often steps in to facilitate free speech (such as the tax dollars that fund the equipment used in White House interviews), and spend a great deal more in things like matching funds to encourage competitive campaigns, and so it doesn't seem too out there to imagine a policy of incentivizing frequent contests for the sake of the democracy.


has newt got it right?

And while these solutions are great, they're just first steps. Even as the media has steadily destroyed public discourse it may also be its redeemer, whether through the YouTube videos that reveal bigotry to debates and town hall meetings which take place entirely in virtual worlds . Bearing this in mind, provided we employ sufficient effort the level and impact of presidential debates can increase, and the discourse vital to democracy can be protected and advanced.