It's tempting to dismiss this year's Presidential debates as non-informative and trivial. If you are interested in knowing more about each candidate's positions and you have been paying even marginal attention, the debates will provide no new information. There is nothing that either man will say that they have not said before, and that cannot be learned from reading their speeches or listening to their statements or visiting their websites.
And, yes, it is a trifle disconcerting to listen to George W. Bush speak. "Like stabbing myself in the eyes," as Chris noted below. But, as Philip Gourevitch points out (see down a few posts), Bush's intelligence is not logical, it's verbal. Or, put another way, Bush's intelligence is not intelligence, it's performance.
That's exactly what this debate is. Most of the people with whom I have thus far had Debate Parties voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. None of us are taken in by the false dichotomy of the two-party system. None of us are acutely attuned to either George W. Bush or John Kerry, and none of us are blind to the fact that they are beholden to the same corporate interests. So why do we watch? Because the Presidential debate format is a performance art. I watch the debates, in part, for the same reason that I went to a performance of
The Winter's Tale at the
Utah Shakespearean Festival this last summer. Sure, I know the words that are going to be spoken, but I want to know
how they will be spoken.
Say what you will, but George W. Bush has the stupid, flighty, short-sighted, ignorant frat-boy act
down cold. For a large portion of the electorate, this is comforting, because they themselves are stupid, flighty, short-sighted, and ignorant, and the people around them in the suburbs are the same way. These are the people they deal with every day. Bush either
is this way in reality, or he takes great pains to appear as though he could be the guy you'd bullshit with about lawn fertilizer or equity loans or your kids' Little League games after church on Sunday.
John Kerry is well-spoken and certainly holds reason, forethought and wise hestitation in high regard. He does an exceptional job of looking like the guy who assembles all of the information and spends a substantial amount of time digesting and understanding before deciding, especially when the decision may affect thousands or millions of people. He understands that socio-political and economic issues are often very complex. He is thorough and deliberate. However, a large portion of the electorate is suspicious of these things. A large portion of the electorate is scared by wisdom and intelligence. A large portion of the elecorate prefers the frat boy. The debates thus allow us to observe and analyze to what extent the public performance of a candidate's views and positions will sway the electorate toward the smart guy or the frat boy.
I watched the
Frontline program on Kerry and Bush last night and was struck by the lack of qualifications of George W. Bush to teach a basic civics class, much less occupy the position usually considered The Most Powerful Man in the World (at least now that Christopher Reeve is dead). He doesn't just lack knowledge (e.g., the bizarre Dred Scott reference in the second debate which, as we know, is
code for Roe v. Wade) and lack experience but he seems intent on cultivating this notion that knowledge and experience are liabilities for a president. The troubling thing is that many people, including substantial portions of the electorate, seem to agree with him. When did it become not just possible but probable that the candidate with the least grasp of diplomacy, foresight and political wisdom would be the most likely to become U.S. President?
The answer, of course, is always. Politics is not a meritocracy. Representative democracy is not a meritocracy. Capitalism, despite what the
Cato Institute would have you believe, is
not a meritocracy. The best idea does not always become the most accepted and widely used, just as the best candidate does not always become the President. We have had four years of baffling, jaw-droppingly destructive, near-irreparable policy, and because of the skill of Karl Rove to do theatre, we may have another four.
This election will be decided on emotion. Manipulation of emotion is what theatre does best. Karl Rove is a theatre director, not a sound policy maker.
I'd love to see his production of
The Cherry Orchard. Or
Antigone. Ooh, no,
Sexual Perversity in Chicago. Totally.
