Yes It’s True: Debates are just tedious political theater

“Go and hear the candidates debate.” — Simon & Garfunkel, “Mrs. Robinson,” 1968.

I got some bad news last week when I learned the “Now and Then” podcast with Profs. Heather Cox Richardson and Joanne Freeman will cease next week.

The two female history professors every week have offered historical perspectives and background to everything that’s been happening. They promote the solid belief that the most important aspect of history is that we learn from it to avoid making the same mistakes again.

Our modern now a-go-go society has done a terrible job of learning from history. Hitler ignored what happened to Napoleon when invading Russia. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld ignored the lessons of Vietnam about waging war a half world away, where we were greeted as invaders rather than liberators.

I’m not the only mourner for the loss of “Now and Then.” Nita O’Callahan, a 1974 graduate of Wayland High School, follows Prof. Richardson almost religiously, as does Sandy Wannamaker Brenner, wife of the former Wayland Union Schools Superintendent.

In today’s next to last podcast, the dynamic duo focused on the process of debates in political campaigns. In the wake of last week’s tedious GOP presidential candidates’ show, their contention was that debates used to be useful, but have become nothing more than political theater.

The profs talked about the New York debates between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr in 1800, which ultimately led to Burr killing Hamilton in a duel.

They talked about the best example, the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, which were not only well attended, but their audiences seem to have been paying serious attention to the issues and what both Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas were saying.

However, over the years since, debates have deteriorated into flashy style-over-substance presentations, not a way to inform the public. It follows the interpretation that Americans want to be entertained rather than enlightened.

Of course, that unfortunate process seemed to begin with the Nixon-Kennedy debates in 1960, in which Nixon was thought not be the winner by those who listened over the radio, but Kennedy cleaned up on TV because of his more attractive appearance. And Nixon never debated again.

Since then, debates have been long on pizzazz and short on substance, the triumph of spectacles over literacy.

Remember “You’re no Jack Kennedy?” Remember “Well, there you go again?” Remember George Herbert Walker Bush looking at his watch? None of these three advanced any kind of instructive discourse for the public’s edification.

That’s why I have given up personally covering debates. I come away not knowing any more about the candidates and issues than when I entered the venue for the program.

Prof. Freeman did provide a silver lining, maintaining that the fact debates still exist, they are a nod to leaving the impression public opinion is important, though it’s manipulated.

I can’t forget the seven candidates who “debated” to win the hearts of voters in the wake of the State House dismissal of State Rep. Cindy Gamrat. After listening to comments and answers from all seven, I realized their so-called positions on issues were essentially all the same. All were Republicans, and one of them would get to be the next state representative in a one-party district.

Most memorable, however, was when former Barry County Commissioner Bob Wenger of Middleville addressed Gary Newell and Jim Bailey in a GOP primary debate for state rep. He stood up at the end of the session and said, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between you two. You’ve wasted my time. I should have stayed home and planted corn.”