Debate Dynamics: The Marketing Of Democracy

It is over, isn’t it?

Apparently we’ve all survived another cycle of campaign waterboarding -cheap-shot, political attack ads that demonize opponents and insult voters. And don’t forget direct mail detritus and the loop of interrupting, pre-recorded “robo calls” that make telemarketers sound sincere. Well, almost.

But now the people have taken a collective shower and spoken. Or at least the minority that weren’t too lazy or indifferent or clueless or disgusted to vote have done so.

That voters in this country are more renown for tuning out than turning out is an American irony and hypocrisy, given the United States’ efforts to bring democracy to other places – notably the kind with warlords and religious clans.

So, in addition to bringing back serious civics courses in our schools and instituting meaningful campaign-finance overhaul, what else can be done to foment more interest in important elections? Shy, that is, of political parody from Barbra Streisand.

Arguably, more than good intentions. That’s the purview of editorial pages, the League of Women Voters, community television and PBS.

Since we are a media immersed, celebrity-driven culture, that means going pragmatic. As in infotainment journalism. Cable TV pundits and talk radio partisans.

Enter Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s “Hardball” fame, who moderated last week’s gubernatorial debate on WFLA-Channel 8 among Charlie Crist, Jim Davis and Max Linn. Besides a reputation for an in-your-face inquiry style, Matthews also brought the prospect of higher visibility. Indeed, the debate drew more viewers than that 7-8:00 p.m time slot normally gets with “Entertainment Tonight” and “Extra.” Moreover, it doubled the audience in the Tampa market for the first debate, which was televised on PBS affiliates.

That obviously wasn’t upside enough for everyone. Not when politics is involved. Matthews is not from here; his buzz-saw style grates on some; he looks like he’d be more comfortable exchanging zingers from a bar stool; and he’s not, in his heart of hearts, ideologically bipartisan. Even if no one else is either.

Granted, the Peace Corps alum and former Tip O’Neill aide and Jimmy Carter speechwriter tilts to the left, but he’s no Al Franken or Michael Moore. He’s not the liberal counterpart to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly. Sort of a gregarious, smart-alecky Tim Russert. He’s down on the war in Iraq, but so are a lot of folks. He’s also down on political correctness run amok. He also liked George Bush – in 2000.

His aggressive manner can make for good television. But he can be a frontrunner’s political nightmare. After the Crist campaign understandably balked initially at the prospect of Matthews as wild-card moderator, the rules were modified and the more informal, “Hardballesque” discussion format jettisoned. The candidates were granted podiums. The questions and follow-ups were Matthews’.

Were they ever. And they were, frankly, more the issue than style.

Matthews did not use his time – an hour less commercial breaks and mini lectures on debate decorum to Max Linn – wisely. The critical statewide issues are taxes, insurance and education. Then add growth management, transportation, oil drilling, economic diversification and illegal immigrants. There’s your future-of-Florida debate.Philosophical underpinnings relating to Terry Schiavo and gay marriage are hardly irrelevant, just less pertinent — and more likely to result in political theater.

Right out of the blocks came a question about Iraq. If nothing else, it put Crist immediately on the defensive for what was – despite Floridians’ service and fatalities – a foreign policy question. It opened up the hyper-critical, “stay the course” floodgates for Davis.

Immediately following was one on civil unions and then a gotcha query about what kind of “conservative” and “liberal” Crist and Davis, respectively, were. Each, to his credit, deftly dodged a narrow labeling. Clearly these were questions more geared to a national “Hardball” audience than Floridians trying to assess gubernatorial bona fides. Later came questions on the election of 2000, Mark Foley and Schiavo. And trite requests to grade Gov. Jeb Bush and President George Bush. A Marion Barry reference directed at Crist was uncalled for.

Sure, there were badgering, “show me the money” questions when it came to fixing the property-insurance and property-tax crises, but nothing about preparing Floridians to compete more effectively in the global economy – given this state’s reputation as a bottom-dweller on standardized-test scores. The FCAT was referenced — typically by Davis — but as part of a “bridge” answer to a different question.

As to style, Matthews’ manner wasn’t anything that a candidate for the highest office in the state should not have been able to handle. Call it a mild mettle detector. It helps to be quick on your rhetorical feet. And you need to handle hectoring with specifics – whether it’s about statewide funding sources, a “paper trail” or where murder fits in the context of (otherwise) declining crime statistics.

There’s a place for Chris Matthews in important debates with national implications, because there’s a place for a format that doesn’t give politicians carte blanche to tap dance around tough questions and constantly “bridge” to their talking points and slam lines. But last week there was also a responsibility for Matthews to have prepared more with Floridians in mind than a national “Hardball” audience craving their political-entertainment fix.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *