Lies and Deceit Are Not a Debate

 Now that the Oct. 15 debate has been cancelled, the Commission on Presidential Debates and we the people have a little more time to think before the next debate format is finalized.

What we should have learned from the first presidential and the only vice-presidential debate begins with wondering why even bother to hold debates when:

•  No one answers questions, in part because
•  Two minutes is not enough time to even begin to answer questions about complex issues;
•  The answers of one side, consistent with their campaign techniques, are based on lies, half-truths, misstatements, and deceit;
•  The objectivity of the moderator is at best questionable.

Let’s unpack some of the above.  First, it is rare to get a clear answer to a question.  Now there are several reasons for this.  One is that the candidates don’t want to turn off any potential voters.  Another is that they don’t want the voters to know the answer (for example, Biden/Harris refusing to answer questions about their intent to pack the Supreme Court). 

But, even if they wanted to give a clear answer, it is hard to do so within the time structures of the debates.  You can’t just answer a complex social or international issue “yes” or “no”.  Such answers require complex explanations underlying the yes or no.  It is impossible to give such explanations in two minutes or less and if one tries to do so it is more than likely that the incomplete explanation will be used against them by the media and/or their opponents.

The limited rebuttal time does not really allow a candidate to challenge his or her opponent when that opponent bases an answer on falsehoods.  If there is a limited (usually 1 minute or less ) time for rebuttal, that is insufficient to explain why the answers of the opponent are deceitful and to cite the necessary facts and authority that prove the deceit. 

It is very frustrating, not to mention unfair, to see an opponent be allowed to base an entire answer on a lie and then see the other participant be left unable to rebut.  This sometimes leads to interruptions (yes, all 4 candidates have interrupted their opponent) as the one faced with the lies tries to set the record straight.

Because of the lack of time to actually address and explain issues, the candidates are left to repeat tired campaign slogans and party lies.  How many times do we have to hear the thoroughly debunked assertion that Trump has not condemned white supremacist groups?  Or the tired out of context and proven lie from Charlottesville asserting that he said the KKK were good people? 

Wouldn’t we all like to hear positions on issues instead?  But the debate format makes that nearly impossible.

And let’s not forget that this is a media event.  The media likes show.  I thought the absolute best comment about the presidential debate came from Sen. Ted Cruz who said that the “raucous debate” reminded him of Detroit Pistons Basketball when the team was known as the “Bad Boys.”  He said, "It kind of reminded me of the Detroit Pistons basketball in the 90s where there were a lot of hard fouls, there were a lot of missed shots. But at the end of the day, I doubt the debate changed the election in any fundamental way."  That’s a pretty good summary of what was a worthless debate, but a pretty good show.

We also must think about the moderator.  It seems that it is the moderator who determines the topics and writes the questions.  These moderators are TV personalities, journalists, etc.  They are people with strong political opinions.  And those opinions, their biases, are clearly apparent in the questions themselves and in the behavior of the moderator. 

The bias seems to have become clearly apparent in the behavior of the moderator who would have hosted the Oct. 15 debate – prior support for Biden and tweets about the upcoming debate with a staunch Trump critic (tweets that he conveniently claims were the result of a hack). 

In the first presidential debate, the moderator effectively became a participant when he took it upon himself to argue with the President.  The moderator’s job is to ask the questions, let the candidates answer, and let the people make their own judgements.

Lack of necessary fairness can be more subtle.  In the VP debate it appeared that Pence ran over his time far more than did Harris.  But, those who actually timed the debate noted that the moderator asserted “time up” to Pence at exactly the 2 min. mark while regularly allow Harris to run over for 15 or more seconds before telling her that her time was up.

So, the committee has more time than it thought until the next debate.  Perhaps they could actually do something to turn the apparently final debate into something meaningful for the voters.  What might they do:

•  Change the structure entirely so that the debate is about issues.  If the debate is 90 minutes, give 30 minutes each to 3 issues.  Treat those three issues like a real debate.  For example, if the issue is going to be healthcare, the opening question might be:  Explain the extent to which you believe the government should be involved in providing health care, why you believe that is the best policy, and how your position/plan would actually affect the citizenry.  Give each candidate an opening of 6 minutes to give a basic answer, then each has a 3 minute rebuttal, then each can ask the other a question for which there are 2 minutes allowed for response, another set of 2 minute questions, and then each gets a 1 minute conclusion.

• With the above structure, the moderator’s primary function would be to keep time and keep it fairly.  Aside from stating the opening question, the moderator should not be asking questions or arguing with the candidates.

• The debate Commission should be the one to come up with the topics and the opening question and it should be objective and even handed so as not to give either candidate an advantage or disadvantage.  I would suggest that the questions should be drafted and/or reviewed by individuals with leanings to both the Left and the Right.

• This should be a stand-up debate.  The candidates should be told in advance the general nature of the topics.

A debate following the above structure might be less exciting than a debate with a lot of fireworks, less exciting than a Pistons game in the 90s, but it would be far more informative for the voters who are electing a President and not a point guard.

Just a thought.

 

Depth of Thought – The Cake Case

For years many have been watching and arguing about the case of the Colorado baker who would not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.  The case has been wending its way through the courts and outside of that process the arguments have, for the most part consisted simply of a re-articulation of one or more of the following phrases: “gays are protected/gays have rights”; “religion is protected/its expression is a right”; “gays are good/bad”; “religion is good/bad.” The line between two sides was well marked and as a result there was no hope of real communication or understanding, let alone any resolution.

Enter the Supreme Court of the United States and its final decision in the case issued this morning.  While the decision may not resolve the entire debate, and I am sure that folks will now begin a debate about the opinion itself, what that opinion also does is give us a good example of depth of thought and understanding.

Here is a link to the full opinion:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf.   I encourage everyone to read it.

Actually, the full opinion/decision consists of several opinions.  Justice Kennedy wrote and delivered the opinion and judgement of the court with which Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices Breyer, Alito, Kagan and Gorsuch joined.  Justice Kagen also wrote a concurring opinion (an opinion which agrees with the ultimate conclusion of the majority, but for different or additional reasons) with which Justice Breyer agreed.   Justice Gorsuch also filed a concurring opinion with which Justice Alito agreed.  Justice Thomas filed an opinion that concurred in part and concurred with the judgement; Justice Gorsuch joined that opinion.  Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion (one which disagrees with the holding/ultimate judgment of the court) and Justice Sotomayor joined in that dissent.

This may seem like a lot of opinions about one case and one might wonder why, instead of 59 pages the Court can’t simply state that the bakeshop won 7-2.  

We need these 59 pages for many reasons.  Following is the one that is the point of this blog.

These opinions, while displaying a depth of thought about and understanding of the issues involved in the case, also underscore the complexity of those issues.  Each opinion explains the basis of the author’s position and why, in that author’s opinion that position is superior to other differing yet also reasonable positions.  They reveal each author’s attempt to understand the complexities of the issues involved as well as to understand the reasoning behind each position on those issues.  These opinions are, in effect, a written dialog between the members of the court in which they present their understanding and support for their positions while listening to and respectfully responding to differing understandings.

This decision puts to rest the particular case of Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, but, this and other debates over this and other issues will undoubtedly continue.  What we all can learn from this opinion is that issues are far more complex than day to day rhetoric and sound bites allow.  In this opinion we have an example of the depth of understanding that we all should make an effort to achieve on all issues. 

It is only with respect for and understanding of opposing views such as we see displayed in this decision that we can ever have a true dialog which, if not able to completely resolve an issue at least allows us to continue a reasonable, respectful, and rational dialog rather that simply engaging in hate-filled debate.  Taking sides and throwing about rhetorical solutions solves nothing.  Depth of understanding and an open dialog which includes both explanation of the support for one’s assertions along with an open-mindedness to understanding of opposing reasoning is the only way that a free society can truly move forward and ultimately resolve the many issues with which it is faced.

So, read the opinion.   Whether or not you agree with the Court’s decision in this particular case, read this opinion as an example of how one can support one’s position with more than simple buzz words and phrases.  Read the opinion as an example of the sort of explanation and support that gives strength to the assertion of any particular conclusion. 

We are not all Supreme Court Justices, but we can all use this opinion as a model for our own discussions with others on issues and as a model for the type of understanding that we should strive for before asserting a particular position on an issue. When faced with someone with whom you disagree, try to emulate the sort of respect, discussion, and understanding that is apparent in the opinion.  Obviously, it requires work to reach this level of understanding about any issue, but that work is far more productive and positive than simply shouting down and not even listening to those who disagree.  Let depth of thought be our goal for it will lead to understanding and real dialog.