Sunday night on C-Span, for the first time in a long time, I watched a debate show that was worthwhile to watch, namely, The Munk Debates.It involved a debate on he subject of progressive taxation with debaters George Papandreou and Paul Krugman advocating for the motion and Newt Gingrich and Arthur B Laffer arguing against the motion. The presentations were fairly reasoned, thoughtful, and challenging. Also, familiar with seeing Krugman and Gingrich in various televised interviews, I was particularly interested to hear whaat Papandreou and Laffer might bring to the table, both of whom I had some general familiarity but no direct exposure to their commentaries. More importantly, the structured interview format involving these latter gentleman required, in my opinion, Krugman and Gingrich to resort to much more intelligent and thoughtful arguments than might be found on the poor excuse for debate programs often found on cable news.
The Munk Debates reminded me of The Doha Debates, which I thoroughly enjoyed, which in turn reminded me of Firing Line. I am not holding my breath, but I am still praying that The Munk Debates might lead to other high quality debate shows. I have sadly observed a lack of inspired action following the public's interest in Firing Line and Doha.
I don't know if Firing Line was the first debate show, but I am pretty sure it is the most prominent one. It had various formats, including William Buckley interviewing and debating an individual whose views with which he vehemently disagreed, and debate panels in which teams stood for or against propositions, such as proposed legislative ideas. An example might be, "Resolved: students wishing to send their students to non-public schools should be given vouchers" or "Resolved: Intelligent Design should be taught in biology class alongside evolution."
Sadly, despite hours each day over numerous networks devoted to debate on issues of public concern, most debate shows I have seen resemble the infamous Crossfire in which partisans simply politely yelled at each other. Ironically, despite the fact that the show was taken off the air after this very criticism was highlighted on the show by Jon Stewart, most debate shows on tv seem to resemble the Crossfire, and are even worse. Too often serious thinkers and politicians are asked to debate their subject area over the course of six minute segments, leaving aside any options for thoughtfulness. Countless segments end with hosts asserting, "these issues deserve more time and we hope you guys will come back to continue the conversation." After years of watching these debate shows, I have yet to observe the continuation of any of those conversations.
This is an extremely serious problem. These shows give the impression that reasonable debate and analysis is represented by the assertion of a grandiose theory, a few factual assertions that are in keeping with the theory, and an insulting characterization of the opposing perspective. This shouldn't be par for the course in candidate debates, but it is even more insulting when non-politician "experts" are asked to engage in such nonsense.
In the interest of advancing thought in our republic, it is critical we recognize the distinction between the two kinds of programs. After all, William Buckley did not shy away from expressing his outrage at the views of his opponents, and often would say things to give the impression that he desired to belittle his adversary. However, in each program I watched, each comment of this sort was followed by an opportunity for his opponent to express his views, and with probing questions by Buckley that indicated a genuine attempt to understand his opponent's position and/or argument. Also, whether genuine or not, Buckley suggested that offered his guests the opportunity to alter his own perspective.
This approach, over that of the Crossfire approach, teaches critical moral lessons needed in a democracy. First, it teaches that those holding opposing political views deserve one's attention, as their viewpoint is not as simplistic and thoughtless as might be initially thought but often come from a moral center deserving of some recognition. Second, it teaches that one can learn from one's political opponents. Third, it teaches that legitimate political decisions are not simplistic applications of global concepts, but require thinking through the complex and sometimes competing values. Finally, for the public, these shows illustrate that public policy involves complex analysis and is not made up of compiling right opinion, or transmission of revelation.
PS: Although this essay is about the debate show, I can't help but mention the very useful related category, the panel discussion. One of my favorite series is Ethics in America, which was a ten part series aired on PBS between 1988 and 1989 featuring panel discussions of various professionals discussing the ethical implications of various hypothetical. Indeed the website on which one can purchase the the videos asserts that the discourse qualify as Socratic. Panelists have included legal experts such as Floyd Abrams and Joseph Califano, business experts such as Warren Buffet and T Boone Pickens, journalist experts such as Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, and members of the legal community such as Rudy Giuliani and Justice Antonin Scalia. Shows like these reveal to the public the complexity of thought required for public policy and even decision-making in the worlds of business, journalism, and law. Most importantly, as with the extensive debates described above, the audience effectively participates (through observation) the analytical process discussed, and is thus made to appreciate how non-foreign it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment