Debates and Decision-making

I have watched both Republican and Democrat primary debates within the last week.  Formats were similar; emcees were respectful; and, questions generally reflected issues that are in the news.  Some of the questions were general while others were candidate specific.  Forcing confrontation was commonplace.

During the debates, it was no surprise that candidates were well-armed with damning criticisms of their opponents’ past behaviors. Attackers revealed example after example of malodorous votes and past support of unacceptable causes or people by their opponents.  Those charged were universally indignant and pronounced the accusations nonsense, or worse, before countering with similarly horrific examples of malfeasance by their accusers.  In all cases, I was left knowing only that one, or both, of the candidates was misinformed, misconstruing, or simply lying about their accusations and their rebuttals.   dutchdresser.com/cartoons.html

Adding another layer of confusion about source veracity, I visited the fact checking websites following each of the debates.  Sure enough, most fact checkers found many statements made by most candidates to be false or partially false.  Often these questionable claims were the most powerful ones made during the debate by the candidate, and they are frequently repeated ad nauseam in television commercials.

My guess is that these fully unethical practices are as old as is campaigning for election.  That rich history has apparently calloused us to the experience.  Clearly we don’t see the level of public outrage that one might expect when those wishing to hold public office intentionally attempt to deceive millions of people at a time repeatedly. I guess the debates have some value as occasionally good theatre, but they have very limited value to those actually considering their choice of candidate.   

Debates have little place in decision making unless you hold one of two positions.  If you see rhetorical skill as a significant attribute for the office being filled, then they certainly have value.  It’s generally not hard to tell who “won” an exchange.  If it’s important to you that rhetorical skill is a veneer on a solid rational and philosophical structure, they provide less insight.

If you hold the odd position those who talk to you very publicly about their qualifications, their past performance, and their actions in challenging times, and lie to you while doing it, should seek employment outside the public sector, debates can also serve well.

Acknowledging that I’m willing to stay up too late to listen to people that I know damned well are lying to me much of the time forces me to try to understand how I decide for whom I vote.  I’ve got to work on that.