This week, the American people (or at least those who still cared or had nothing else better to do with their time) were treated to two starkly different approaches to presidential debates thanks to NBC's Brian Williams and CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Williams chose to request that the audience refrain from behaving like they were at an SEC football game and save their applause for after the debate, while Blitzer chose to maintain this debate season's status quo soccer hooligan-esque behavior. Tonight, I'm going to do an analysis on why these two approaches to crowd control should be examined more closely by both GOP candidates and the American populace at general, and why silencing raucous behavior may end up benefitting the GOP in the long run.
January 23rd's NBC debate in Florida was unique in that it was the first time during this debate season where the moderator, Brian Williams, asked the audience to remain silent during the process to allow the candidates ample time to provide responses and rebuttals without being cut off by the cheers and jeers of their fervent supporters and detractors. This was a welcome change in a debate season whose events have perhaps been best characterized not by the responses from the candidates, but by the audiences' reactions to particular candidates, positions, or political leanings.
From booing an active duty gay soldier's question to cheering the death penalty, not to mention cheering the option of letting the uninsured simply die, this year's debate audiences have stolen much of the limelight away from the people whose answers are supposed to matter most - the candidates. What emerges from these performances is a bleak illustration of the very divided nature of our body politic in the United States, and it leaves me to wonder, will this behavior ultimately serve the GOP well in the long run?
The responses from the various candidates and political pundits to Monday's silent debate could not be more starkly contrasted.
Mitt Romney, frequently touted as the inevitable candidate by Republicans who actually want to win the White House, could not have benefitted more from the silent debate after having been soundly trounced more by the audiences' responses than by his opponents in the debates held in South Carolina and New Hampshire. Pundits on the left and in the center seemingly all fell into the school of thought that it was nice to finally hear what the candidates had to say, rather than watching them vie for the Fan Favorite response.
Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, watched the momentum he had gathered in South Carolina come to a sudden halt as his debate ship entered into the silent doldrums of the NBC waters. His usual show stopping performance was markedly absent without the very vocal support of his usually enthusiastic (and crazy) audience, all of them acting in an ensemble cast performance of Desperately Seeking Non-Romney. After realizing that it's hard to sell a talking point without a cheering section, Newt left the debate embittered, calling the silencing of the audience "un-American" and refusing to participate in another debate wherein the audience can't respond to his generally combative style. Many pundits on the far right and even The View's resident human dunce cap, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, agreed with him, contending that the debate was "crappy," and uninformative.
And then, there were the also-rans - Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Despite the "surge of Santorum" (pun intended) in Iowa and Paul's brief ride on his beautiful New Hampshire balloon, Monday's silent debate found them out in left field where many contend they belong. Both candidates enjoy their own segments of fervent (and often delusional) supporters, and without those people there to respond to their zingers, the two candidates were often left lobbing dead balls in their attempts to throw Romney and Gingrich under the conservative bus.
After much ado was made about...well, literally nothing...the CNN debate on January 26th, moderated by Wolf Blitzer, provided the antidote to Monday's stale debate. Thursday's debate delivered television viewers from the silent movie hell and back to the Jerry Springer set where they belong. Blitzer served as a tough moderator, standing up to the candidates when they attempted to castigate him or evade questions about their pasts or their campaign ads, redeeming CNN's moderators if only a little bit after Gingrich smacked down John King for asking about a pending interview with his second wife. Blitzer made certain that no candidate would get away with such shenanigans and with great effect - the audience responded immediately to his calling out of Mitt Romney when he attempted to disavow any knowledge of his attack ad against Gingrich.
Despite the return of an active and vocal audience all too quick to cheer and jeer at the slightest opportunity, the damage from the first Florida debate was done. The majority of the debate was a pissing contest between Mitt and Newt, who seemed bound and determined to fight it out Girl Gang style, while Santorum and Paul sat on the benches waiting to be thrown in to give the starters a break. Mitt's attacks all seemed to land squarely on Newt Gingrich's frighteningly Slitheen-like head, while Newt floundered about in the shallow end of the pool, spending most of his time attempting to shift focus away from his own disgraceful record as both a person and a politician (I'll let the Wikipedia article speak for itself), and onto Romney's record as a mostly moderate, and often left-leaning, politician.
The few times the Also-Rans had the opportunity to speak, they were almost literally breathless in their responses, both of them knowing that they had only a handful of chances to get a word in edgewise. Rick Santorum's modus operandi seemed to be to gather all the fire and ire he could muster and word vomit up the most offensive far-right statement he could conjure in less than thirty seconds (his comment on illegal immigration - astounding in its idiocy). Ron Paul, on the other hand, was bound and determined to fire his delusional crackpot rocket off into outer space, and his cadre of rabidly loyal fans lapped up the few crumbs he had time to toss onto the stage while trying to make way for the real candidates to return to the microphone.
The second Florida debate showed us that the only way GOP candidates in this year's race can be taken seriously is with the aid of audience participation. It's no small wonder that conservative media pundits loathe Gingrich, given that anyone who paid attention during the 1990s remembers what happened the last time he got his grubby hands on Washington, D.C. Each of the remaining candidates, though, seems to be operating in his Own Private Idaho, with Santorum sincerely believing he can squeeze out a win (pun intended), Ron Paul living in his fantasyland where 11% of the vote makes him a viable candidate, Newt Gingrich trying his hardest to rewrite his storied and well-known personal and political history to rebrand himself as a good person, and Mitt Romney bound and determined to escape the simple but unstated fact that he's a Mormon, and conservative Christians have about as much appetite for Mormonism as they ever have.
What is clear about the silent debate approach is this: while it makes for incredibly boring television, it forces the candidates to focus on providing thoughtful responses that will connect with the audience members who aren't dressed in late-18th century attire. It gives them the opportunity to try and garner votes from people who are still undecided or who have grown disillusioned with the Obama Administration's approach to fulfilling his promises of hope and change.
While the presence of a vocal audience may seem like a boon to the GOP candidates right now, it can very quickly turn into their bane. The Tea Party, for all the change they've brought to conservative D.C. politics (most of it plainly awful), is quickly falling out of favor with American voters, with nearly half of likely voters believing they will be a liability for the GOP in the 2012 election cycle. Playing populist politics can be a dangerous game, particularly with a group as fickle and unreliable as GOP voters. The time of a united GOP has long since ended, and it is incumbent upon whomever becomes the eventual Republican candidate to reach beyond the screaming audiences of fervid debate attendees and into the homes and minds of people who need real convincing.
No comments:
Post a Comment