If a human mind were composed of a dozen eggs, and you soft-boiled
them, broke them open, and let the goo run all over the plate, down on
to the table, soon dripping on to the floor, that would be mind control,
in the sense that you're creating meaningless chaos, where no thought
is important or makes sense or adds up to a cogent point.
That was the CNN-hosted Republic Presidential debate, with what was it,
nine candidates sounding off, interrupting one another, and mentioning
Trump so often it seemed like they were afflicted with a one-note samba
syndrome.
You could conclude CNN, a Democratic stronghold, wanted the chaos, to
throw the Republicans into an exceedingly bad and foul light, but other
recent Presidential debates, hosted by other networks, have come across
in the same basic fashion.
The problem starts with networks hosting these lunatic events. Since
when does a debate need a moderator who controls and asks all the
questions? Since when does a network need to have any role at all?
A debate is supposed to be two people contending over an important issue.
For contrast, consider the 1858 Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas
face-off---when apparently citizens still had a semblance of
intelligence. Both men were running for a US Senate seat in Illinois.
In those days, state legislatures chose US Senators.
But the issue in the debates was slavery, so the interest was intense
and it was national. Here was the agreed-upon format: seven debates in
seven Illinois towns over the course of three weeks; in each debate, the
opening candidate would speak for 60 minutes, his opponent would speak
for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate would return for 30
minutes.
The debates drew large crowds. Chicago newspapers had stenographers in
each town. The stenos took down every word, and newspapers across the
nation printed, in full, the texts.
Those were debates. No one with sprayed hair was in control. The men talked. And talked.
If you could transport the CNN Republican debate back in time to one of
those Illinois towns, the audience would conclude, in short order, that
all the participants were insane, possibly suffering from brain damage.
"These people are running for...what did you say? President??!!?? You're joking. This a joke, yes?"
What do you think the 1858 audience would conclude about the state of
the country in 2015? A country that actually acquiesced in a "debate"
of this sort?
What do you think the 1858 audience would conclude about the two
political parties, in 2015, who permitted such debates, and about the
general electorate who expressed partisan support for either party?
"And in your time, 2015, no third or fourth party of any strength has
arisen to sweep these mad Democrats and Republicans into the dustbin?"
No, the Lincoln-Douglas debates didn't settle the issue of slavery.
Something called the Civil War broke out. But that fact doesn't excuse
what these crazed Presidential debates have devolved into.
I'd really like to see one of these 2015 Presidential candidates take
the podium and speak for 90 minutes about a single issue. You'd have to
have support teams standing by to administer oxygen and possibly meth,
just to keep them upright.
We're talking about a candidate staying on point, on one issue.
"I remember my grandmother telling me, when I was nine, you can do it,
you can be anything you want to be. I'd like to thank Mrs. Gallbladder,
my third-grade teacher, for spending time with me when I---people say
we should have a balanced budget, but they just don't understand how
economics---there weren't any emails, well there were but none of them
compromised---ownership of the means of production isn't---better
schools for our children---attacking terrorists by insulting them
isn't---equality isn't just for---my father was President and so was my
brother but---I made great deals to put up those hotels---when I look at
a human brain on the operating table, I know what this universe---this
isn't the first time a woman has tried to win the Presidency but---"
Goo and more goo running everywhere.
Reporters and PR flacks and party hacks seizing on a few words of the
opponent and highlighting them on social media. "Can you believe he
slipped up and said
Afro-American?" "Did you see that fly on
his nose?" "A red tie with a blue suit is supposed to look
Presidential?" "I counted. He interrupted nine times." And these are
the more intelligent tweets.
On the other hand, the current TV debates preclude the possibility of
something dangerous happening. For example, in a real contest, suppose
the single issue was Syria and a candidate stepped up to the podium and
said:
"During my remarks in the next sixty minutes, with no
interruptions---yes, we're going back to a much older format---I'll be
the making the case that the current US administration has essentially
created ISIS, in part for the purpose of overthrowing the present
government of Syria. Consider this fact alongside our declared 'war'
against
ISIS. This is more than an outrageous contradiction. It's an
intentional deception, and a crime of the highest order, considering
what ISIS has been carrying out in terms of the destruction of human
life. Now, I'm not just saying these things. I have evidence in the
form of documents, which I'll be explaining in detail. Some of these
documents and reports are already public. Others are not. I also have
statements, on the record, from US military officers and Pentagon
executives. So bear with me, stay with me, I'm going to take this one
step at a time..."
There are many ways to keep this sort of thing from happening. The easiest way: never let a true debate occur.
Give Rand Paul 90 uninterrupted minutes to explain what his father was
explaining? The criminality of the Federal Reserve? Are you kidding?
And just in case you think the American public is so addled they
wouldn't be able to follow such a presentation, I have a secret for
you. At first, it would be a problem, yes. But if more and more true
debates took place, a change would bleed in. People would begin to wake
up. They'd find themselves, bit by bit, intensely interested in the
proceedings.
After all, part of the reason the public is brainwashed springs directly
from the fact that so few politicians or media people tell the truth or
explore any issue in depth. Reverse that trend and the mind begins to
reassemble itself.
How about something like this? Crossing party lines, Bernie Sanders and
Rand Paul debate, seven times, as Lincoln and Douglas did, the
following: "What is socialism, and is it good for America?"
If either candidate were unable to do more than spout vapid generalities
and programmatic fumes during his seven hours, it would surely become
obvious.
How about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, in the same format, debating
the question: "Describe in detail the best immigration policy for
America." If their seven events turn into a Niagara of opposing
non-sequiturs and self-inflating jive, so be it. It'll be on parade for
all to see.
No comments:
Post a Comment