Debates Do Parties More Harm Than Good
- Politics -
After watching the two different debates on CNN — the Democratic face-off in South Carolina and last night’s Republican duel at the Reagan Library in California — it is easy to tell why people hate politics.No matter the Party a politician represents, or where their campaign is held, more than anything these candidates are just all-out, ruthless competitors who will cut corners in order to claim victory.
Essentially in one-party debates, the audience knows that the candidates have a certain list of principles and issues they all agree on.
Somewhere along the way candidates undermine each other, finding petty ways to distort the other’s message; anything to get under each other’s skin, and discredit their opponent at any point — with no regard for their party’s stability.
When the Clintons turned their South Carolina campaign into a race issue, it was clear they were so desperate to repeat in the White House, they did not care that the African-American vote has been one of the most reliable to the democratic party in recent years, and that making race an issue could have a longer-term effect. In fact, the nomination still may fall into the hands of Barack Obama, and the last thing they need is the whole party focusing on his race over more relevant issues to the nation.
Last night’s Republican debate followed a similar suit. The men on stage — Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, John McCain and Mitt Romney — smiled big for the cameras, thanked all the right people before beginning, and then proceeded to bop each other over the heads over issues they all tend to fall in line over. The main difference between some of the men is their life experiences — for example: Huckabee is an ordained minister, while McCain is an ex-prisoner of war — so voters are choosing their candidate based on character.
The main squabble from the Republican debate was between McCain, who won the most recent primary in Florida, and Mitt Romney, who has spent the most money out of all the candidate but still finds himself in second place. The two argued that Romney may have used the wrong word once, when discussing the exit strategy in Iraq. Apparently when Romney used the word “timetable” he did not mean for it to mean he planned on setting one, as the Democrats were demanding one. McCain argued that using the word “timetable” implied Romney was secretly “one of the other guys” (quotations are his implication from what I understood, and not McCain’s exact words) who wanted to get the hell out of Iraq just as much as a regular ol’ Democrat.
Both men do not want a set date for withdrawal in Iraq, and their party members who are voting for them tend to know this. But the voters who pay little attention see arguments like this and think, “Oh my goodness, Romney’s not lock-and-step with our guys, so let me give my vote to McCain, who believes exactly what I do!” These affect mostly the impulse voters, but it distorts the facts.
The bottom line is that in most of these debates, the candidates are fighting from the same team, wearing the same “jerseys” (if you will), yet still find a way to sling mud on their brethren — so much that it discredits their Party’s message.
Now I know why I never became a politician. Even when some people claim to never take the low road and attack below the belt, using the “same old politics” candidates typically use, the race reaches a point where the end seems to justify the means — at least in the candidate’s minds.
But like years of the past, parties go through shifts in popularity among voters, and this divide is one of the main reasons. After a while, the “same old politics” of campaign friendly fire gets old, and voters reach a limit where they won’t take it anymore.
Voters are not all stupid; it is the candidates who make the mistake of thinking so.
