Political debates should be about discerning the ideological differences between candidates, not the controversy behind the presence of a fan.
That seems intuitive, but formal political debates have disintegrated and are no longer a place for candidates to share their ideas. Instead, they are an attempt to avoid saying anything controversial while allowing opponents the opportunity to make a costly gaffe.
The debate circus was on display this week in Florida where Gov. Rick Scott, reportedly refused to take the stage for his debate with his challenger, Charlie Crist because Crist had a fan installed under his podium. In what can only be described as one of the weirdest moments in televised debate history, Crist stood on stage while the moderators explained that Scott was in the building but was unwilling to take the stage because the rules stated no fans would be allowed.
Scott eventually took the stage, but the damage had already been done. Crist was seen on stage questioning why they were debating over a fan, when there are far more important questions facing the state of Florida. In the day following the debate, everyone had his or her own opinion on the incident, but several people have suggested that Rick Scott may have lost the election as a result of what has now been dubbed “fangate.”
I have to assume that many important issues were discussed once Scott took the stage, but those were all ignored as fangate exploded and captured all of the headlines.
While it’s an entertaining story, it’s also disappointing that such a small issue has overshadowed the more important issues debated. Even more disappointing, this debate exemplifies what has happened to political debates across the country.
Instead of showing up to provide more depth on their ideas for office, candidates agree to participate in debates with the hope that their opponent will say something to cost them votes. According a story published by the Huffington Post, the Crist campaign actually sent out a fundraising email about the fan, before the debate was even over.
Candidates across the county seem to have a "do no harm" mentality when it comes to debates. As long as they can escape the public spectacle without saying anything that their opponent can put in an attack ad, they’ve done their job. When a candidate says something harmful, though, the opposing campaign is ready to strike.
The social media campaigns begin almost immediately, pushing a one-line gaffe to the outer reaches of the universe along with the idea that it was the most important statement of the entire debate.
The voting public deserves a better brand of political debate. The debates shouldn’t be driven by the desire for a social media campaign decrying an opponent’s statement. Candidates should provide explanation and defense of the policies that they’ve presented on the campaign trail, instead of the same prepared political talking points that they’ve been using for months.
As long as campaigns and candidates continue to see debates as an opportunity to score votes on an opponent’s slip up instead of on the merits of their policies, debates won’t reveal necessary information. Voters and candidates should work toward a more honest form of debate where candidates are held responsible for what they’ve said but won’t be ridiculed for a one-line comment in an otherwise strong debate.
Reach the columnist at zjosephs@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @zachjosephson
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
