Like every responsible American, I tuned into
the presidential debate last Friday to watch
the two people who aspire to lead our country
do battle with proposals and plans. Perhaps
foolishly, I was expecting two distinguished and
sophisticated men engage in an interesting exchange
of ideas. At the very least, I was expecting
that I could be proud to call at least one of them
president by the end.
Instead, what I saw were two grown men
behaving like immature elementary school
students running for student council. Both candidates
made contemptuous smirks while the
other spoke, sometimes even breaking out into
laughter. Other times, they wouldn't even bother
to keep to their own podium; speeches would
be interrupted by blanket accusations or even
mockingly sarcastic comments. The whole affair
was about as unprofessional as I hope politics
ever gets, and, ultimately, I was embarrassed
that the two men on stage are America's only
serious choices for the presidency.
The candidates' poor behavior during the
debate is not unique -- rather, it is a characterization
of what the electoral cycle has become.
This election has continued and even worsened
our tradition of choosing adjectives over nouns.
What I want to hear are the candidates' proposals,
even if it means I must endure a lengthy diatribe.
What I don't want to hear are statements like "he's
very clear and succinct" or "he carried himself
very presidentially." Hopefully, every presidential
candidate can be described by such words.
These descriptive statements are, despite their
futility, violently shot back and forth between the
two sides. Instead of debating the actual operatives
in both candidates' health care plans, we
argue to no end whether or not one is "bloated"
or "inadequate." November only heralds an empty
victory for one side, and the voters are just glad
to be done with it all by then.
For example, at the debate, both candidates
questioned each other's dedication to the troops.
The conversation began on track, but suddenly,
the argument turned to the subject of bracelets.
Each candidate revealed they had a bracelet with
a deceased soldier's name on it accompanied by
a tear-jerking story about a grieving mother. Just
when you thought lapel-pin patriotism was bad
enough, we start playing "gotta catch 'em all" with
the men and women who have given their lives
for this country. This isn't the sort of respect our
honored dead deserve.
Another side effect of the adjective-campaign
is its tendency to quickly become negative.
Because it takes more than 30 seconds to describe
why you shouldn't vote for the other side,
extensive ad campaigns screech that candidates
are "out of touch" or simply "don't understand"
how things work. As a result, we get viral e-mails
that intentionally mislead us about the health and
religion of our candidates. As student-council
elections taught us, the best way to discredit your
opponent is to call him names and spread nasty
rumors about him.
The natural counterargument is that the candidates
have a lot of people to reach and simply
don't have time to detail every plan to every
American. This statement is entirely correct. In
fact, that's exactly why each candidate has an army
of loyal supporters and campaigners behind him.
These are the people who are close enough to the
electorate to properly explain these proposals.
We can start here at Dartmouth. We have both
the College Democrats and the College Republicans
-- representatives for each of the parties.
What if, for the benefit of Dartmouth students
and the local community, a student from each
group studied the details of their respective candidate's
proposals, then presented them before
an audience? I'm not talking about nice header
terms like "comprehensive" and "effective," I'm
talking about details -- numbers, statistics and
specific initiatives they want to enact. None of
this open mockery of the opponent, either. For
once, I want to hear what each candidate has to
say without talking about his opponent or getting
interrupted by abrasive comments.
I don't expect that the other upcoming debates
will be any more professional, nor do I think that
negative ad campaigns will either cease or create
useful sentiments among the electorate. What I
do believe, however, is that in this rare academic
environment, we can still preserve the integrity
of the election.
