This entry refers to the first Presidential debate of 2012, between incumbent President Obama and Republican candidate Romney. A link to the debate can be found here:
http://youtu.be/dkrwUU_YApE
I shall also be referencing the first Presidential debate of 1960, between Kennedy and Nixon. The link to that video can be found here:
http://youtu.be/gbrcRKqLSRw
My most poignant observation with regard to the 2012 debate is primarily how much I hated it.
The way that our class's explorations into rhetoric connects to my distaste of the debate is through the way both candidate Romney and President Obama spoke with regard to policy. Policy topics were fairly wide-ranging -- from the economy, to healthcare, to the deficit, etc. -- which in turn demanded wide-ranging responses on the part of the debaters. This really grinds my gears. I tend to want to hear about policy choices and their effects.
Instead, much of the debate became a yes-you-did-no-I-didn't mess. First, both candidates attacked each other with what were essentially opinions. Some may have been fact, but the average viewer does not have access to immediate verification. Thus, the attacks become a pointless waste of time. Later on, President Obama brandished some sort of study. Romney retorted that he saw some sort of study "that morning" that said something different. This highlights another aspect of why opinionated attacks on the part of the candidates are awful and pointless.
But are they really pointless?
The shift from observations of candidates' policy to their personality seems much more obvious in modern debates than in previous ones. For example, I highly enjoyed the 1960 Presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon. It was unbelievably civil in comparison to modern debates, and while the candidates may have gone over time on their answers, they did so to better explain their positions regarding policy. Likewise, it was illuminating as to what each candidate's chosen tactic regarding policy was.
There were many other differences as well. For example, questions were posed by four major news representatives. The candidates would then respond and bring their attention to whichever of those representatives did the asking. As a result, my opinion was that the infamous 1960 debate was more or less a tie.
Popular America thought differently, however. It was purported that Kennedy "won" the debate. Likewise, many news agencies (such as the BBC and NYTimes) have relayed that Romney has "won" the first debate. What does this even mean? It seems that this would mean the candidate who appeared most attractive was the winner.
Hariman & Lucaites and Stracham & Kendall could probably explain this better, in that how a Presidential candidate appears to act is much more important than his policy choices. Especially when observing the candidates through a visual medium. Romney constantly made eye contact with President Obama while speaking. He was also much more assertive and active. Therefore, he is the "winner." Does this mean that Romney's policies are superior to Obama's? Not necessarily. It merely means that Americans watching thought Romney looked cooler. Perhaps more "Presidential."
Going back to the pisteis, this heavy focus on the pathos and ethos aspects of the argument are what I find most trite and superficial.
Probably one of the best examples of this during the Presidential debate is Obama's constant mentioning of Romney's supposed desire for a five-trillion-dollar tax cut, which Romney would vehemently deny each time. This feature, an attack on Obama's part and a defense on Romney's part, demands I make a decision to believe one of the two candidate's assertions. This demand is based on the presentation of the two candidates -- which emphasizes pathos and ethos. Personally, I refuse to make a decision until I can look up the information myself -- because I love logos. Thus, the entire exchange regarding whether or not Romney favors a five-trillion-dollar tax cut is meaningless to me, at least until I look up the information.
I don't trust either candidate to tell me the truth. And because the debate is filled with these yes-you-did-no-I-didn't tactics, I find it awful.
Another aspect that fits into this idea of a pathos and ethos heavy TV presence is the sob-story filled references. One example of this is where Obama spoke with regard to social security and mentioned his own grandmother. I'm sure Obama loves his grandmother. I'm also relatively sure that she was a nice lady. But I honestly couldn't care less about her relation to Obama's policy choice. I want to know what his policy choice is, and the way it affects Americans. I don't want this clouded with emotional hyperbole.
Despite all my uproar, I seriously doubt this tactic will fade any time soon. It's obvious that it is an effective tactic because everyone does it. Likewise, Stracham & Kendall's talk of how the human psyche is affected by imagery and impressions highlights that concept.
Additionally, while I've used President Obama's speech as examples to highlight the filthy tactics of a modern Presidential debate, I must admit that I favor him as a candidate. The method I've used to do this is by researching his policies. Because I agree with a majority of them, I thus favor him as a candidate.
It would be fair to do the same with Romney -- look up his policy stances and how they affect Americans. But I have not felt much incentive to do so. The overwhelming message I get from Romney is that he will do the opposite of what President Obama is doing. Because I favor most of President Obama's policy choices, I am inclined to not favor Romney.
Although, because I have not truly researched Romney's stances, I admit that this is not a fair assertion. It is however, another reason to highlight my desire for policy illumination during debates, rather than opinionated attacks and emotional hyperbole.
No comments:
Post a Comment