Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Articles
Democratic Underground

Substance Over Style

September 30, 2004
By Bennet G. Kelley

If you were picking a surgeon, would you select a surgeon whose strongest praise was that he avoided any major screw-ups? Would you select a job applicant who managed to exceed your limited expectations over the candidate who truly did best in the interviews?

In the real world, none of us would make such foolish choices. So why do we allow this to be the standard in selecting the President?

Consider the 1988 Bentsen/Quayle vice-presidential debate. Two comments that night made a lasting impression. The first, obviously, is when Senator Bentsen smacked a very green Quayle with his "you're no Jack Kennedy" response. The second was when network analysts declared the night a success for then-Senator Quayle because he avoided a major screw-up.

Is that the standard by which we determine who should be vice president? Woody Allen always said "eighty percent of success is just showing up," but until that night we never thought that was sufficient to qualify someone to be our country's second-in-command.

Jump forward to 2000 where George Bush was deemed to have "won" the debates not on substance but because he exceeded the pre-debate "C student" expectations of him which his campaign actively cultivated.

It appears that there is a higher bar for the presidency, as the candidate must not only show up but also demonstrate that he or she is not as dumb as you may think.

The Bush campaign is shamelessly trying the same strategy for the upcoming debates with Senator Kerry - even though Bush has served as President the past four years. After four years in office shouldn't the standard be higher than "I'm still not as dumb as you think?"

It is time for an end to this "soft bigotry of low expectations." We must judge debates on the merits and not like a beauty pageant. A Committee of Concerned Journalists study of the coverage of the 2000 campaign found that the Bush-Gore debates were the number one story of the campaign's final stages but only 11% of this coverage addressed the substantive policy issues discussed. Instead, the media focused on the sporting aspects of the debates and reported on the candidates' strategies and whether their performance met "expectations."

If the political media is going to cover the debates like a sporting match, they could learn two things from their colleagues covering boxing.

First, any reporter covering a boxing match would keep score for each round. Political analysts should do the same if they want to talk about the debate in substantive terms. They can either follow the boxing methodology which is based on hits, aggressiveness and controlling the ring or standard debate scoring which is based primarily on the strength of the argument and how well it is presented.

Second, if the Rocky Balboa/Apollo Creed fight from the movie Rocky took place in the real world, the sports headlines would read "Creed Wins Split Decision," and not "Balboa Goes the Distance, Proves He's Not a Bum." Such an approach makes sense since, regardless of the type of competition, readers want to know who won, who was better, and what was the score.

In 2000, viewers heard analysts herald Bush's debate performances for such things as reciting global hot-spots like Sierra Leone, but what was barely mentioned was that debating coaches found Gore won each debate. For some reason the media believed that voters didn't need to know this crucial information.

With the first debate this week, it is time that the media recognizes that these debates are not a reality game show but a job interview for the most important position in the country. If this truly is "the most important election" in ages, then we deserve to have these debates judged on substance and measured by the voters' expectations for the next four years and not pre-debate spin.

This means that the real question the media should address is not whether a candidate exceeds someone's pre-debate expectations, but which candidate performs best in their job interview with the American public.

Bennet Kelley is publisher of BushLies.net and author of President Bush: The False Prophet of the Christian Right which appears in Big Bush Lies (RiverWood Books 2004).

 Print this article (printer-friendly version)
Tell a friend about this article  Tell a friend about this article
 Jump to Editorials and Other Articles forum
 
Support DU
Click here to donate
Democratic Underground is a totally independent website, funded almost entirely by member donations. Thank you for your support!
       
DU Store
Click here to visit the DU Store!
Visit the DU Store
We've got sweatshirts, mugs, mousepads, and much more...
 
The Usual Suspects
 
The Top 10 Conservative Idiots The Top 10 Conservative Idiots
April 17
The Crisis Papers The Crisis Papers
April 18
The Plaid Adder The Plaid Adder
September 14
Ask Auntie Pinko Ask Auntie Pinko
March 30
Blog Box Blog Box
April 14
Equal Time with Bob Boudelang Equal Time with Bob Boudelang
December 17

Hate Mailbag
November 2
DU Recommends
Click here to buy from Amazon.com, and DU gets a share of your purchase!

Unequal Protection
Buy it!

Unequal Protection
Buy it!

Click here to buy from Amazon.com

Home  |  Discussion Forums

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC