Dems Debate While Nation Gets Ready for Some Football

Nick Gillespie | January 5, 2004

Let's say you're a major political party down on its luck. In the past few years, you've managed to squander decades-long control of Congress (with only a few short interruptions), you couldn't follow up a two-term incumbency in the White House with a win, you've been tanking in statehouses across the nation, you've got declining voter enrollment, yadda yadda yadda.

What day do you pick for the first debate among your party's candidates for Campaign 2004? The same day as a couple of NFL playoff games, the bowl game that decides the college football champ (well, sort of), a full slate of new episodes on Fox's not-incorrectly named "Laugh Out Loud Sunday," and the season premieres for two popular HBO series.

To top it off, your top would-be presidents--two of whom don't even bother to show--spend most of their time complaining that the Republicans have improperly implemented programs that you totally agree with. To wit, these exchanges from yesterday's Democrat debate:

[Rep. Dick] Gephardt accused [Gov. Howard] Dean of tempering his support for trade agreements to curry favor with labor unions.

"Howard, you were for NAFTA, you came to the signing ceremony. You were for the China agreement," Gephardt said. "It's one thing to talk the talk, you've got to walk the walk."

Dean said the agreements as implemented by the Bush administration have "globalized the rights of multinational corporations, but they did not globalize the rights of workers, they did not globalize human rights, environmental rights, the right to organize."

....

Dean...assailed Democratic rivals in Congress for voting for Bush's education program, the No Child Left Behind Act, which he contended has failed in its stated mission to rescue failing public schools.

[Sen. John] Kerry defended his vote, noting that his Massachusetts Democratic colleague, Ted Kennedy, was a key sponsor. "Ted Kennedy, is the greatest champion of education in America," he said. "He didn't put this in place to have it implemented this way.

The most embarrassing moment may have come when Dean insisted on a show of hands from those who would support the eventual nominee. As someone who leans neither Democrat nor Republican, this was the sort of cringe-inducing showcase that helps explain declining party affiliation.

On second thought, maybe the Dem planners knew what they were doing when they slotted this debate into a time when no one would be watching.

Comments

|1.5.04 @ 1:14AM|#

Let's face it: we Americans are among the most intellectually lazy creatures on Earth.

What a load of horseshit.

People skip these "debates" because they aren't debates. They're sequential soundbites; nothing more than elongated campaign ads. They don't tell you what candidates stand for, what they believe, or how valid their reasoning is. They're useless for assessing candidates.

That's why people don't watch them. Not because Americans are "the most intellectually lazy creatures on Earth" (a statement only possible if the speaker has never met anyone from another country).

|1.5.04 @ 1:30AM|#

ah, fellas, don't you know yet that if you aren't an insipid coffeehouse activist, you aren't smart? ;)

ed, if you really have that sort of contempt for the american electorate, why advocate a representative government as all? why not just back your favorite elitist dictatorship in a coup d'etat?

|1.5.04 @ 1:32AM|#

They want us to watch that dreck, they'll need crank it up a few notches. My suggestion - more violence.

Cage Match 2004.

Let Clark and Kerry put some of that commando training they got in the military to winnow out the weak and un-worthy candidates.

|1.5.04 @ 1:48AM|#

Think of it! Kuchinich v. Sharpton: a semifinal bout that could rival the storied Manute Bol v. William "Fridge" Perry tilt on "Celebrity Boxing." Put a dozen doughnuts in the ring and send Dennis and Al after 'em.

|1.5.04 @ 1:54AM|#

I watched part of it because my wife wanted to, and since I'm not a football fan there wasn't anything else I was going to watch. I like Kucinich's line: "I'm electable if you vote for me."

Not that I'm a Kucinich fan, but a similar line may be useful for 3rd-party candidates confronting the "wasted vote syndrome."

OK, maybe it won't work, but it was cute.

|1.5.04 @ 2:13AM|#

"an insipid coffeehouse activist..."

Actually, I have a job. Anyone need large-format digital printing?

GM- "...what's "right, proper and vital" is a matter of opinion - not fact."

Really? No absolutes, just opinions?

Dan- I have met many non-Americans, and they tend to know more about American history than Americans. Not EVERY American, of course.

As for our intellectual standing, simply take a look at the top movies, music or books this week, and make your own judgement.

|1.5.04 @ 2:42AM|#

"Really? No absolutes, just opinions?"

Absolutely - just opinions.

|1.5.04 @ 2:46AM|#

Ed -- thanks for staying above the fray while us mouth breathers remain content with watching football in our own filth. With top-flight minds like yours, I know we're in good hands.

|1.5.04 @ 2:54AM|#

As for our intellectual standing, simply take a look at the top movies, music or books this week, and make your own judgement.

The mere fact that we have top movies, music and books is an indicator of how wrong you are. How many countries have high enough literacy rates to warrant top information charts. I realize that the US isn't number 1, but YOU were the one that said we were "among the most lazy creatures on earth."

If hyberbole is the extent of your persuasive arguement, then perhaps you meant "I am among the most intellectually lazy creatures on earth."

If you really think that stuffing your head with "important" things like pre-primary stumping platforms is any more worthwhile than formulating analyses of Packer's offense schemes, you're only fooling yourself. Because in both cases, it's not going to make an iota of a differance this time next year, hell, next month.

|1.5.04 @ 2:56AM|#

lol-

Ed-"No absolutes?"

Gilbert- "absolutely."

Ah, yes. The only truth is that there is not truth.

|1.5.04 @ 2:58AM|#

Citizen-

Literacy rates aren't a fair indication of anything but the fact that someone can read.
Example: N. Korea. Excellent rates of literacy and starvation.

|1.5.04 @ 3:27AM|#

The original point of this was a comment on how people choose to spend their free time. In other words: What's their hierarchy of values? Do they turn off their brains on Sunday? Is the governance of their country less important than football? I contend that, given that choice, most Americans will choose the mindless entertainment, then bitch like hell after the election.

BP - A good shrink might help that self-esteem problem.

|1.5.04 @ 3:44AM|#

No, ed, football is more important than government. People pay to watch football.

This same bullshit came up when presidential debates conflicted with the World Series a few years back. As a libertarian, I'm thrilled that people like baseball more than politics. It's really not healthy to enjoy politics too much.

I'd probably put myself in the "unhealthy" bracket; I pay way too much attention to politics. But if some debate is on at the same time as the NBA finals, then fuck you, Dennis Kuchinich.

|1.5.04 @ 3:46AM|#

yelowd - I'll concede to a good example like N. Korea. However, while ed wanted us to infer from a top Bestseller list that Americans are intellectually lazy, I wanted to show that the existence of said list was proof that we are reading - just not the things ed prefers. Meanwhile there are hundreds of countries with low literacy rates, rendering bestsellers lists nonexistant. What, by ed, does that then say about their intellectual prowess?

But, again, you are right. Although, starvation isn't an indication of anything either, aside from the rate of people dying to hunger. =)

|1.5.04 @ 3:47AM|#

Steve, could you elaborate a little more on the notion that it's not healthy to enjoy politics too much?

|1.5.04 @ 3:56AM|#

I can safely tell you that in the European country I lived in, people *always* looked for something, anything, anywhere to pass the time before they would watch a political debate. Even when the (ubiquitous) state-run TV pre-empted everything else for the debate.

For our own good, of course.

|1.5.04 @ 4:19AM|#

Citizen-

Thanks. That's a first on H&R for me.
I suppose there may not be a correlation between plato's "philosopher kings" (which ed seems to be pushing all of us to become by spending our time wisely) and literacy rates.

As for wasting our time... that's a tough call. If the highest end of your life is to please yourself, and you find tv pleasurable, than it is most certainly not a waste. Ed and I would look down upon you for wasting your time. Still, I'm sure there are a bazillion mother teresa's out there who would look on us as leading selfish lives driven by the desire to perfect or at the very least hone our knowledge and wisdom of the world. In the end, ed, I, and the tv watchers are all lumped in the same category of selfishness, whereas the do gooder is not. Of course then the do gooder is doing there acts out of self interest so they're just like us.

StMack|1.5.04 @ 4:30AM|#

And at least if you're tuned in to the football game, you know you're watching someone with a chance of winning.

|1.5.04 @ 4:34AM|#

"What's their hierarchy of values? Do they turn off their brains on Sunday? Is the governance of their country less important than football?"

Lack of interest in watching a debate among Democrat pinheads is no indication of a lack of interest in governance of the country.

As for the general notion that Americans are lazy and stupid, well that doesn't say much for the rest of the world since we've outdone them all militarily and economically for many many years.

|1.5.04 @ 4:54AM|#

Football is better than politics. What's the problem?

Also, I'm glad there is another JDM posting here, and I can stop wasting time on this insipid jackassery knowing that Promidalphacrotics are still represented.

|1.5.04 @ 5:06AM|#

Isn't it just the folks who live in states with the first few primaries that are lazy? I live in NY, and this will all be sorted out long before it's my turn to vote in the primary. If it isn't, then I will pay attention a few weeks in advance.

Why waste time listening to all those folks when only a few will still be in the running by the time I get a chance to vote?

Gene Berkman|1.5.04 @ 5:40AM|#

Citizen comments that the fact that we have bestseller lists for books, music and movies is a sign of our literacy. He is right about this, and an interesting additional fact is that translations of American books usually occupy at least half the slots on the German and French bestsellers lists, as listed in Spiegel and L'Express.

American movies dominate every market in Europe. American movies take in about 75% of ticket sales in Germany, and are slightly lower in France because of government subsidies for the French film industry.

America has the biggest publishing industry in the history of the human race, and the biggest film and music industries as well. And American books are a better deal than books in the UK or Europe.

|1.5.04 @ 5:43AM|#

"why not just back your favorite elitist dictatorship in a coup d'etat?"

Well, Hillary says she isn't running until 2008...

|1.5.04 @ 5:48AM|#

yelowd -- sure, I'll elaborate.

Politics, broadly defined, is collective decision making. Usually, it's people getting together to decide what rules they want to make for other people to follow. It's necessary, but I would look out for people who enjoy it too much.

To quote P.J. O'Rourke, "Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without possessing merit."

Most people have better things to do, like making a living, or watching football. I certainly won't pass judgement on someone who's more interested in football.

|1.5.04 @ 6:01AM|#

Oh wait, now I get it. Ed works for the Dean campaign, and he's here poll testing some new material. His last effort, "You there, slack-jaw huckleberry with the confederate flag bedecked truck, can I count on your vote?" didn't go over as well as anticipated.

|1.5.04 @ 6:26AM|#

"I have met many non-Americans, and they tend to know more about American history than Americans."

Funny, most non-Americans I've met don't know much about American history at all. At least, not those I've had a chance to discuss such things with. My wife's family, from Ecuador, are obsessed with shopping at K-Mart, Target, etc., when they come to visit. They don't seem to know much or care about American history or politics, etc., they just like the access to cheap, good quality goods.

One insight: prior to Gulf War 1, my wife (then, my fiance) visited her family in Ecuador. One of her relatives told her not to worry, Americans don't fight wars themselves, they abduct Latin Americans to do the real fighting!

|1.5.04 @ 6:30AM|#

Someone commented about the how intellectually lazy Americans were and pointed to US top movies vs. the top movies in other countries. A strange and dangerous thing to do, considering the facts. Now I don't pretend to know exactly how to rate the intellectual quality of a list of movies, but it sure does look like Americans have more refined pocketbooks than non-Americans... see

http://www.imdb.com/Charts/usatopmovies

and

http://www.imdb.com/Charts/intltopmovies

Good God, them foreigners have Independence Day at #7. They sure do like to see things blow up!

green|1.5.04 @ 6:58AM|#

Argue all you want, its really easy to find proof that Americans are intellectually lazy, unengaged in politics, and in fact, vote against their own stated interests with alarming frequency.

See the book "What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters". I've read so many articles on our ignorance I've stopped being surprised.

Regarding smart Europeans:

Over the years, I have been impressed by the knowledge college educated Europeans have about the United States, compared to how ignorant Americans of similar backgrounds are.

Phil|1.5.04 @ 7:02AM|#

I hate to simply echo what others have said, but . . .

I have met many non-Americans, and they tend to know more about American history than Americans. Not EVERY American, of course.

I have lived, vacationed and worked among non-Americans, and I'd say that fewer than 5% knew any more about American history, politics, or culture than my 14-year-old nephew.

As for our intellectual standing, simply take a look at the top movies, music or books this week, and make your own judgement.

Bad news, chief -- those same books, movies and music are all bestsellers in Europe, too. In fact, I can say without reservation that the pop music charts in the UK, Germany and France are demonstrably worse.

|1.5.04 @ 7:41AM|#

steve-
you may be right. Shouldn't we fear the "let me run your life" nonsense of most intellectuals? Are they not the lazy, leeches that create no wealth and merely live off of the builder/creator?

A perfect example is the University professor (let's go with liberal arts, not the sciences). They as a class insure their jobs by promoting the "liberal arts education" over the past couple hundred years. A republican man requires this education to be able to reason and to be a good man and a good citizen.

Then let's look at joe blow farmer or industrialist. He couldn't tell you why there should be 3 classes, bronze, silver and gold. Nor that the philosopher king should rule but never will. He simply knows that you plant in the spring, harvest in the fall, save enough food and supplies for a year and sell the rest to make a profit.

Impact on the world:
Farmer- destroys the "natural" environment. Provides food for more than just his family. Is living Jefferson's perfect life.

Intellect- Develops ideas of the way things ought to be. Creates such ideas as nihilism, social darwinism, and religious fundamentalism which lead to the hopelessness, death, and destruction through war, holocausts, and education.

Maybe it's better that Americans are not intellectuals.

StMack|1.5.04 @ 11:55AM|#

Gee, I didn't see the debate. Was Dean the only one who didn't raise his hand?

|1.5.04 @ 12:52PM|#

Nick, your boy ray davies has been shot in New Orleans...

|1.5.04 @ 12:55PM|#

Political debates will lose out to any form of competition for sofa-spud eyeballs, whether it's Sunday afternoon or Friday evening. Let's face it: we Americans are among the most intellectually lazy creatures on Earth. We can't even be bothered to learn the difference between "democracy" and "republic." Most Americans, sad to say, vote for their own(seeming) short-term interests instead of what is right and proper (and vital) for the continued prosperity of free human beings.

|1.6.04 @ 6:10AM|#

This is the most fun comment board I've read at H&R to date - gotta keep some of the good lines in my journal. :)

Yes, we Americans ARE ignorant. And many are intellectually lazy. Why bother thinking about these obscure, conflict-ridden topics, when X here says "Vote for me and government will solve all your problems!" Republican government (as in the system, not the political party) is the most difficult to maintain, because it relies on an educated, virtuous, and selfless citizenry to succeed. Currently we have a lot of poorly educated (or disastrously un-educated) people, and not a lot of virtue (especially since we can't even agree on what virtue IS, so it's pretty darn difficult to reward it).

Being educated does not equate to being smart. I can't tell you how many certifiably educated people think that the surest way to avoid getting beat up by a bully is to divest oneself of all defense. Or that the way to encourage achievement is to punish those who excel. But then, I haven't gotten my certificate yet - does that make me uneducated?

|1.6.04 @ 8:24AM|#

To govern oneself is the most difficult challenge. Communism does not require one to govern oneself, to design laws that are just and serve the greater good. Most forms of government place the reins of power in a small group of individuals and then leaves them there (communism, monarchy, theocracy). A democracy means each person votes on each law. A republic means each person votes on a representative, who then votes on the law. And the representatives are periodically up for removal or reelection, as the people decide. Other forms of government have their difficulties, but they are the difficulties of maintaining power, and of imposing order. The difficulties of representative government, of self-governance, are of developing laws for oneself and the society that are meet and just and do not favor one group above another - something that is incredibly difficult to do. Is it any wonder so many people rush to turn the job over to someone else?

As to virtue, defining it is only half the battle. Then one must live according to that code. Enforced virtue is no virtue at all - hence the Taliban is not an example of virtue. It's an example of people taking power and imposing their notions on everyone else. That is not virtue - it is brutality. True virtue is can only be achieved in a society where one can choose to not be virtuous.

As to whether people are educated poorly or not - this is not the philosopher-king model I'm talking about. This is, most American high school graduates don't know where their capital is. They don't know what the Constitution says. They can't recognize the Declaration of Independence. They don't know the structure of their government, nor the function of the various parts. Certainly one can muck along just fine without knowing those things, but ignorance of our founding principles and our current state of affairs is to no one's benefit but the ambitious and power-mad.

We have the right to vote. With that comes the responsibility to educate ourselves. I don't want idiots deciding who is going to chart the course of my country for four years at a time - but the only way to fix the problem is for people to face up to their responsibilities.

|1.6.04 @ 11:35AM|#

Why bother thinking about these obscure, conflict-ridden topics, when X here says "Vote for me and government will solve all your problems!" Republican government (as in the system, not the political party) is the most difficult to maintain, because it relies on an educated, virtuous, and selfless citizenry to succeed.

You mean "... besides all the other ones," right? Wouldn't a democracy then be more difficult to maintain, or a communist nation? Wouldn't those rely more heavily on education, virtue and selflessness?

Currently we have a lot of poorly educated (or disastrously un-educated) people,

Compared to what? To tribesmen of darkest Africa? To rice pickers in Vietnam? To joe-European circa 1804? Or are you only comparing us to the mythical "educatated modern white European"?

and not a lot of virtue (especially since we can't even agree on what virtue IS, so it's pretty darn difficult to reward it).

You're right. A theocracy certainly would make THIS aspect easier on us. We definately wouldn't have to think for ourselves then. I mean, if concurrence is the measure of virtue, does that make Taliban-exported terrorism a great savior?