The Debate We Deserve

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to ABC's Pennsylvania Democratic debate

The complaints started as soon as last night's Democratic debate ended. According to the pundits, this was the worst debate of all. The moderators asked questions that primarily focused on scandal and personal attacks. In today's Washington Post, Tom Shales wrote that the debate was "another step downward for network news...." Shales was not alone. MSNBC host Keith Olbermann spent his post-debate broadcast lamenting the quality (or lack thereof) discussion that had just taken place.

Yet these complaints are not exactly fair. They assume the existence of a higher level of politics than we have had for a long time. As frustrating as it might be, the truth is that the quality of our political debate has greatly diminished over the course of the twentieth century. Since the late 1900s, and especially since the 1950s, we have lived in an era where political campaigns revolve around character and personality with an emphasis on scandal and gaffes.

The rise of television since the 1950s and the transformation of the print media has reduced the amount of time that voters have to hear and read what candidates had to say. The time of the "soundbite" shrunk even further with cable television and the rise of celebrity television anchors -- declining from 40 seconds in the late 1960s to under ten seconds by the mid-1980s. The primary process, as it took shape since the reforms of the 1970s, further accelerated this shift by making character and media appearance even more important. Candidates adjusted effectively and have learned to run their campaigns on this basis.

Voters have been guilty as well. The problem is not just the media or the political process. Public interest in politics has steadily declined since the nineteenth century when turnout in presidential elections averaged almost 80 percent and 60 to 80 percent for nonpresidential year elections. Election day was a major public event akin to entertainment. People vote less, their attachment to political institutions has declined, and their distrust in politicians has grown. Americans are more interested in American Idol than American presidents. They're not asking for much substance.

While the nation would undoubtedly benefit from a political process that emphasizes substance and issues, we aren't there now. Thus, there is value during the primaries to debates that center on potential scandals. Why not have debates put candidates through this kind of scrutiny -- whether with Barack Obama's ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. or Hillary Clinton's misstatements about Bosnia -- since those are the issues that Republicans will discuss in the fall? We are in an age of Swift Boat attacks. So if Democrats want to win the White House, shouldn't they get to see how candidates handle these kinds of attacks before the general election begins ?

Of course, these kinds of debates provide Republicans with fodder and substance-based campaigns would be much better for the polity. But until we have a better political system and a more attentive electorate, we are not in a position to dismiss the type of debate that we had last night. We got the debate we deserve.

Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the co-editor of Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s (Harvard University Press). He is currently writing a history of national security politics since World War II that will be published by Basic Books.

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to ABC's Pennsylvania Democratic debate

Comments

[Rescisco]

Yes, the blame must be shared. But the Lion's share must be shouldered by a MSM culture that has abandoned journalism and that no longer performs a vital public service.

"When many organs of the press adopt the same line of conduct, their influence in the long run becomes irresistible; and public opinion, perpetually assailed from the same side, eventually yields to the attack." Alexis de Tocqueville

The MSM has killed journalism, and with it our democracy. The influence it wields (despite our protest) numbs the senses, eliminates thought, obfuscates reality, and produces a blend of political impotence and public idiocy that leaves the corporate elite undisturbed and ever more powerful.

[doc1400]

The premise of this writer is true: "..the quality of our political debate has greatly diminished­..
However, the conclusions of this writer are b**ls**t, and this is why.

To conclude: "there is value during the primaries to debates that center on potential scandals" is to say that the issues are not more important. This is some of the most ridiculous b*lls**t I have read in a long time. To say that indulging in supermarket tabloid journalism has value is totally and patently assinine.
Since when does debate "that centers on potential scandals" result in better healthcare, a better standard of living, better education, and getting out of an elective war.

This writer is saying that because this "discussion" that ABC News stupidly calls a debate took place in the gutter and the mud in no way justifies getting further in the gutter and the mud. This is total crap.

To also say: "until we have a better political system and a more attentive electorate, we are not in a position to dismiss THIS type of debate" is also totally assinie and circular. Is the writer saying that we the citizen don't deserve a better political debate until we have a "better political system"? What arrogant BU**SH*T.

And pray tell, how in the hell are we the citizens going to get a "better political system" unless we insist on a better political dialogue?

[ohnoyoudidnot!]

Remember when The League of Women Voters used to host debates? They always did an admirable job.

[ZsaZsa]

I disagree. Regardless of what the American people want, expect, or "deserve" from a debate, the media have the power, and the obligation, to educate the public about the issues at stake and the candidates' positions on them. I think you are putting the cart before the horse. You say that these lousy debates are a result of people getting turned off to politics. I think the opposite may be the case. Or at the very least, it works both ways.

[Heartlander]

The ABC event was more like a Q&A than a debate. Having said that, I will say that one never knows what to expect from a televised "debate." Thus far, we have had some that were more "debate-like" than others. I think that they have all been useful in showing something about the candidates. It is also likely that the supporters of the candidate that fares the worst will rise up and complain about the format, or the moderators, or the questions, or the location of their candidate on the stage, or the number of questions, or the amount of time given their candidate.­.........I­n the ABC event, Obama did not look good and he left several openings for further criticism/­questions. He will need to further explain who wrote the notes in handwriting that so closely resembles his own, he will have to explain why he denied having done or said something, only to explain that it was his campaign when it seemed likely that he would get pressed about the denial, he will eventually have to explain the reason that he placed Rev. Wright behind the scenes early in his campaign. Because the nomination process has gone the way that it has this year, it is only natural that at this stage the focus is on the candidates personal attributes.

[newunderground]

Oh for god sake, give me a break.
It is so hypocritical and weak to give the press a pass on this. Our constitutional system is based on men of godwill getting together to comprimise in order to get along. Our founding fathers were a pragmatic lot, and many comprimises were made in order to pass the constitution, Slavery, Big states vs small states, etc.

The Republicans discovered the Wedge Issue in the late 60's and used their "culturally conservative" racist base in the south to dominate national politics for the next 40 years. In their twisted little minds, compromise is evil, as are the godless socialistic democrats. They practice scorched earth politics for 40 years, then complain about the toxic culture in Washington. The press has been more than complicit in this. These are the issues Ross Perot callled Gorilla dUST, thrown up to distract debate. Hillary is despicable. We democrats stand for something.

[Pharos]

The Republicans won because they were better organized and didn't fight each other. After years of dirty tricks, the Democrats should have been ready for them, we weren't, we lost.

As far as I can tell, Obama still has not responded to the charge he was indecisive in a top seceret military exercise, He demanded an apology for the use of the word "boy", got it and dropped the issue. It's going to come back and bite him. He responded to the wrong charge and the Republicans are just drooling hoping no one has noticed yet. Again, slow inadequate response, like Kerry.

[jbatch]

Actually, Julian, you're dead wrong. You're confusing political coverage with the debates.

Yes coverage has been on a toboggan ride to hell for 50 years now. But the debates used to be run by the League of Woman voters and other such entities until very recently, and they were generally of high quality.

And the MSNBC debate run by Obermann (the yahoo below, notwithstanding) focused on climate change, the economy, the war, the constitution -- ya know, stuff other than lapel pins.

That's what makes this so egregious.

[DanoS]

Come on. Sure, Obama was clearly flat during that debate - his worst to date, but still adequate. The debate felt more like a funeral than a debate in tone. Why couldn't the audience be allowed to interject some life and passion into it?
The pacing was horrible, the questioning was poor and heavily bias towards silly nonsense issues. Now that doesn't mean Obama shouldn't have answerer the questions better - what’s so hard to simply say "I stayed with the church because of its good fellow patrons extend beyond the pastor"? Or describing the good purpose and mission of the committee he sat on with Ayers. But Clearly Gibbons was more concerned about his own financial investments than the countries.

[erykah]

I totally diagree with this post. The fact that thousands of viewers stormed the ABC website and other blogs and voiced their displeasure at the way this debate was handled demonstrates that we did not get the debate we deserved. Echoing Michelle Obama, I fell really proud of Americans for the first time in my adult life. We are maturing and demonstrating our rejection of sensationalized journalism. We want substance. That is what we deserve.

[GuyInNC]

Think about the people who compained. Keith Olbermann. And, does his show each night contain a healthy political discourse on policy issues using experts from the various areas?

No, Keith Olbermann has a bunch of journalists and political pundits on every night to discuss tat day's gaffes and the current horse race. If he's not willing to provide better, why should he expect the debates to?

Keith Olbermann, heal thyself...

[matthewhusseinsmith]

Why can't we have debates moderated by PBS?

[mike53]

Whats wrong liberals? No one faints when Obama comes on the stage and its a bad night?
You guys are just pissed because someone actually asked him some real questions. Obama is not ready for prime time. Only good thing he has done is to slow Hillary down.

[thetruthbringer]

Oh and I guess McCain is ready...Ma­n that needs Joe Lieberman to correct him every 4 seconds

[StephieL]

Yes, we got the debate we deserved, loaded with the kind of baseless schoolyard gossip, ruthless innuendo and lurid insinuations about Barack Obama which sell papers and generate TV ad revenues, because Americans seem to take great pleasure in watching the game of "kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down" as it was so expertly "played" by Gibson and Stephanopolis.

At one time, the media was both the people's advocate and the people's watchdog; now, the media has degenerated to becoming gossip peddlers and sensationlists if it will put a few more dollars into the corporate coffers.

[Pharos]

I was a McGovern campaign worker back in the good old days when the media was good. He came to our red state and the crowd was one of the biggest ever for a political speech in that area. I was eagerly waiting to read the paper the next day and listen to the local. There was at least a two page spread on the speech in the paper the next day. As I started reading I was just stunned. That wasn't the event I went to. The reporter was getting it all wrong. What was going on? I was sure the TV news would get it right, they would show actual video. Wrong again (but they did show video).

I just could believe how bad the media had become since the days of JFK! Of course I now realize JFK must have felt the same, he just dealt with the media as it was, not the media as he wished it could be.

[JGatsby]

"Until we have a better political system and a more attentive electorate, we are not in a position to dismiss the type of debate that we had last night" How are we supposed to get a better political system when the people who are supposed to report on and analyze the candidates and their positions give us nonsense like this? You say that people need to demonstrate that they want something better. Have you taken a glimpse at the ABC web site and seen the avalanche of posts decrying their ridiculous debate? What more do the people have to do? Storm ABC by force and burn it to the ground? Hmmm, maybe not such a bad idea. (Just kidding, don't come and get me homeland security) You are part of the problem. An academic apologist for garbage journalism.

[Herrington]

Zelizer, you declare a philosophy that is necessarily self fulfilling. We are feed stupidity because we are stupid, having been fed stupidity for so long. Since there is no alternative, rather than dig the facts out of alternative media, what we get is the lowest common denominator, all the time.

Network executives are literally deciding for us, that in which we "should" be interested. The hew and cry over the junk that was offered last night should be telling you the opposite of what you declare. Americans are ready, willing and able to "deserve" a higher order of contest coverage and debate moderation.

Witness that Olbermann is now the sixth most influential news anchor, on his erstwhile backwater show on MSNBC. People are going there for a perspective that is not served up in the Madison Avenue homogenized product of the MSM. The message is clear if the moguls will listen.

[matthewhusseinsmith]

You may be a little pessimistic. The folks who take the time to watch the ABC "debate" are politically conscious; I watched for 15 minutes, then turned the TV off;
I believe many did the same. The morning-after calls and write-ins to ABC are a healthy sign.

I really like Olbermann because he says the opposite of what the MSM says; instead of singing the praise of the government, he puts the spotlight on it, playing the role of the loyal opposition party in a parliamentary system; a job that the democartic party in this country has abdicated; once a democrat goes to Washington, it's hard to tell him from a republican; both have similar personal interests.

Folks are jaded about politicians; this time around a fresh face promises to do things differently and maybe even keep his promises. Maybe we should give him a chance. The hour is late and the ship is leaking all over.

Would'nt it be great if he turns out to be "Mr. Smith goes to Washington"?