• Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m old enough to remember when the League of Women Voters ran these debates, and candidates had more than two minutes to answer a complex question.

    You best start believing in failing empires: You’re in one.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      The League of Women Voters was an anomaly. They only ran debates in three campaign seasons - '76, '80, and '84 - and pulled out in '88 when the RNC and DNC leadership attempted to set the terms of the debate behind the LWV debate organizers’ backs.

      Now debates are about as unscripted as any other reality based TV show, with campaigns knowing everything that will be asked well in advance of the event and getting to dictate everything from the time of questions to the lighting of the stage.

      You best start believing in failing empires: You’re in one.

      American democracy has always been a shitshow. Go back to the real time coverage of older debates - from Nixon v Kennedy to Bush v Dukakis to Bush v Gore - and you’ll have people saying all the same shit about the campaigns being superficial and the candidates being too heavily coached and staged and the analysis being too vapid.

      This is how liberal democracies function. If you’re just now noticing the kabuki nature of the show, it isn’t because things have gotten worse. Its because you’ve become more experienced and less naive.