Watching the Republican presidential debates is like watching cage fighting to me. Almost nothing is considered below the belt. The ultimate goal of the match is to render the opponent at least unable to remain standing if not unconscious. I hate cage fighting. The only time I’m forced to watch it is when I take my grandkids to a sports grill — and even then, I shove them aside so I can sit facing the TVs that are showing golf or competitive bowling.
It is often difficult to hear what is being said, because the candidates talk over not only the moderators but also each other. They make jokes and pull faces if they feel they are not getting a fair amount of air time. They demean each other.
The list of people who have been targeted by the Republican frontrunner grows exponentially each time he speaks. He’s taken aim at immigrants, Muslims, women, LGBTQs, Canadians, and innocent bystanders who happen to be on Fifth Avenue if he decides to prove his point about his inevitability. This fact alone cements the need for mental health screenings for gun purchasers.
He makes me particularly glad I’m not a Republican these days.
According to the fact-checker tallies, the Republican debates have been rife with truth-stretching and out-and-out lies. The debaters pull figures out of the air in the same way magicians pull rabbits out of hats. Again, the frontrunner leads the way. Among his most memorable misstatements are that he watched a video clip of “thousands and thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering” the fall of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Debunked. Or that he “got to know Putin very well” when they appeared on the same news show. Again, debunked.
Although the frontrunner leads in this department, his nearest challenger has carved out a niche for his own particular brand of manipulation of the truth. Perhaps reaching back to his days as a Harvard debate team champion, he has on more than one occasion boldly defended two wildly divergent positions on issues as important as immigration as simply nuances of the same stance. Quite a trick. It’s like watching a juggler tossing machetes into the air and managing to finish the act with all ten fingers intact.
Because their antics are so amusing and fun to watch, the Republican candidates make it alarmingly easy to forget the implications for our country if we wrongly choose a leader from among their ranks.
This is serious, and this is also why lately I’m glad I’m not a Republican.
Before you stop reading and brand me a flaming liberal (a label I mostly don’t dispute), let me say that the Democrats are not without their very own gaping chinks in the armor. I don’t think the private server debacle or the Benghazi questions are going away anytime soon. Nor do I think that an avowed socialist declaring that taxes will be raised under his reign is going to attract a bevy of middle-of-the-road voters.
But here’s the difference to me.
The Republicans are playing out a Saturday Night Live skit every day before the lights and cameras of the mainstream press. They punch and counterpunch; they name-call; they use sarcasm, condescension, and bareskinned meanness to attack each other. And it is playing well to certain segments of the voting populace. From what I can tell, these strategies seem to resonate with voters who have become so disgusted with our current elected officials and so disenfranchised with the American dream that the lunacy put before them by the Republican candidates seems refreshingly honest and forward-thinking. And I sort of get that. I, too, am disgusted with business as usual in Washington, D.C.
The Democrats up to this point, however, have chosen a different road. Some, and I would include myself among them, would call it the high road. They seem intent on sticking to the issues and pointing out policy differences while remaining respectful of each other’s basic humanity. I don’t think their strategy will swing south, that is to the low road, anytime soon. The Democratic candidates seem stubbornly determined to represent themselves and their party differently.
I fear that the qualitative differences between the Republican primary as presented and the Democratic primary also as presented mirror the differences in appeal between watching the “PBS News Hour” and “The Price is Right.” While both have their respective value, they are designed for different purposes and different audiences. One forces you to think, to engage with facts, to draw conclusions. The other allows the viewer to live vicariously through the contestants, who jump and scream as they vie for a chance to spin the big wheel.
It’s likely easier and some would say more enjoyable to watch “The Price is Right.” I would say that we can’t afford to sit on our haunches and be entertained. As voters, we need to engage. We need to compare not only the substantive differences in the parties but also the nature of how they approach their responsibility to the voters of this nation. Do they see their roles as candidates and representatives of the two major parties as performance or information delivery?
And so that is why these days I’m glad I’m not a Republican.
