Debating what is acceptable.
HILLARY
You’d have to be living in hole right now not have some impression of the presidential contest that’s being waged in the US. What are your thoughts on what you’re seeing?
JACK
This is probably one of the most exciting, hotly contested, elections in our history. Certainly, it ranks among the top in my memory. I cast my first ballot in 1944 for Franklin D. Roosevelt. I can’t help but reflect on the transparency of this year’s election as compared to years past. There is no questioning Roosevelt’s impact, but the electorate for certain was not aware that he was as sick as he was, that indeed in a few short months he would be dead. No one was prepared. Today, if a candidate sneezes we have many hours of reporting on the state of their health. Whether it’s good or bad, it is a fact that everything is reported in endless detail. We are living in an age of instant communication, and we see directly as the event happens because of the giant magnifying glass, all of the candidates’ imperfections are out there for the world to see. It is all the more remarkable that a statesman-like action is seen just as quickly. We certainly have more information at our disposal to help form our opinions.
HILLARY
While I agree that there is more coverage, I don’t necessarily agree that we are becoming more informed. There is great detail over candidate quibbles, and sore throats and choking back tears, there is less detail over actual plans of action. I see no coverage of candidates outside the top few, (some are specifically excluded from debates in states where they appear on the ballot, for which I can find no legitimate explanation) and I hear very little about actual policies. I think Lincoln and Douglas communicated more without the help of radio and television, let alone the Internet, than our candidates are communicating today.
JACK
It’s not a perfect world. As brilliant as the Lincoln Douglas debates were, the public did not get them with the immediacy and the urgency that exists today. I even find that a seemingly unfair exclusion of a candidate with little or no chance of election is compensated for by a more extensive interview being picked up in talk shows and the blogsphere. You are probably referring to Ron Paul, who was not in the last Republican debate on Fox News, but last night he had a long appearance on the Jay Leno show where he was able to air his ideas in much greater detail.
HILLARY
Actually I was referring to Dennis Kucinich being excluded from the large ABC two party debates, where Ron Paul was included. Jay Leno is not responsible for hosting presidential debates. There are specific formats for this purpose. Why do the network television producers get to decide whom we see and hear at a presidential debate? Should not the candidates who appear on a ballot, which requires a determined number of supporters, appear on a national broadcast for debate? What possible benefit can this offer the American people, and what benefit are the television networks getting from excluding them?
JACK
I would be the last one to apologize for or explain a network action. I’m sure that they can offer any number of reasons. Certainly the fact that their name appears on a ballot should not qualify because the issues become obscured by the many names that do appear on the ballot from fringe parties. This is not to say that Dennis Kucinich should or should not qualify. What I am saying is that properly or improperly a serious candidate has his day in court. There is no limit to the accusations that can be made. The issue that is most important to me is that most of the views presented are aired, but someone spending $100 million is going to get a lot more attention than someone spending $1 million. This will not be corrected unless there is public funding of campaigns, which opens up a whole other Pandora’s box. There is no questions that the process is complex and in many ways wasteful. But, at the end of the day most serious candidates are given a good opportunity to communicate with the public. The event that most impressed me, and that tells me that we have not lost sight of the American way, was the occasion when candidates from both parties mixed and mingled and showed that one of them would indeed be president and all of the others would offer their services or step aside. The reality is that after the election, the outgoing president goes to the inauguration with the incoming president and the transfer of power is made peacefully.
HILLARY
I’m certainly not expecting you to apologize for the networks, but I do believe that the network control over debates is bad for the country. We need a system that would allow for every candidate who has gotten on the ballot to have a time to address the nation. Allowing television corporations to determine for the American people who is and who is not a viable candidate is a travesty, and is a violation of the public’s trust - which we have loaned to the corporations in the form of the airwaves which belong to us. I don’t think it’s too much to ask.
JACK
This is a highlight of a cross-generation communication. From the older prospective, I am reluctantly accepting what is doable, while you speak out about your dissatisfaction with not only what can, but what should be done.
Communication is inspiration! Share your thoughts below.
Leave a reply
