Debate and the Nation
Tonight is “THE DEBATE”. Vice President Kamala Harris will meet Ex-President Donald Trump on the stage in Philadelphia. It’s on ABC without an audience, but in front of the Nation and the World. How much can we expect? In the end, we will remain a Nation divided. But, as they said in 1968 in Chicago, “The whole World is watching”.
We are a polarized Nation. There are 45% of American voters who will support Donald Trump, and 45% of American voters who will support Kamala Harris. That leaves 10% who are somehow undecided. But the most important factor in this November election is which candidate can motivate their own voters to show up. Of the 45% on both sides, there are “diehards”, maybe 35% MAGA supporters, and, now with Harris, about the same for her. Who beyond the diehards shows up to vote; that will make all the difference.
Being divided over politics is nothing new. What is new in America is the vitriol and fear connected with political positions this year. For many diehards, it comes down to, “Choose my candidate or I hate you”. And that’s new for the modern era. In fact, you have to go back to the Civil War to find that kind of discord between supporters of one side or the other.
Back in the “old days”, the 1970’s and 80’s, there were certainly issues that divided us. The Vietnam War, school desegregation, the more extreme version of conservatism that Ronald Reagan represented, are all examples. But, through most of those times, it didn’t pit neighbor against neighbor. I could put a Carter/Mondale sign on the corner, my opponent could put a Ford/Dole sign, but somehow we still respected each other’s right to make the choice. It doesn’t feel like that anymore.
Curating the Divisions
Families are divided. Conversations are carefully “curated”. (That’s the word of the month, everything is “curated” from restaurant menu items to bed frame upgrades). There are times you can speak your “truth”, and times when a casual conversation could put you at risk. The traditional American Thanksgiving or Christmas is now conflicted, some topics “verboten”.
In 1976, I was on the Carter/Mondale staff. Teachers had me into their classes to talk about campaigning. As a twenty year-old college student with a “uniform” blue blazer and a American Bicentennial flag tie (still hanging in the closet), I didn’t pretend to be unbiased. But that was allowed, back then. Teachers let their students know that I was obviously biased, but a good source for what campaign “life” was about.
Today, I don’t think that could happen. Students would feel quite comfortable attacking “the other” side, either way. Parents would be outraged. Teachers would be questioned for inappropriate class materials, or political bias.
So what happened in the 1980’s and 90’s that led to this change, from a time when we could mutually disagree without, as the saying goes, being disagreeable? Who’s to blame for our current division, not just in politics, but in conversations?
I have an answer, but first, I need to give a “full disclosure” notice. My father was the head of Multimedia Programs and Production. He created and sold individual television shows across the country, a process called “syndication”. His most famous show was “The Phil Donahue Show” (Phil passed away a couple of weeks ago, the end of an era for my family). So I had more than a little exposure to some of what went on behind the scenes in syndication, and with some of the personnel behind those shows.
Rush
Remember that the late 1980’s was still an era before cable TV took hold. Most of the programming America watched came “over the air” (no wires, you could watch TV for free – still can, though today it feels kind of like the rotary dial telephone – antique). Instead of thousands of viewing or listening choices at any given time, there were only six or so channels to see. So most Americans were familiar with most shows; we’d all at least “tried” them once.
There are two figures that I lay “the blame” for America’s path to being “disagreeable”. The first is Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh was better known for his radio broadcasts, but he also had a TV show for a few years. Rush brought a whole new style to conservative “talk show” radio/TV. He would make a point, then attack any who argued against him as not only wrong, but stupid. It was a machine gun spray against any other view than his own. He would never acknowledge even a single “point” by the other side. Listening to Limbaugh, or trying to have a discussion with his adherents, was a completely different, frustrating, “take no prisoners” kind of political discussion. It was frustrating because no one listened to your points, they simply moved onto to their next talking point. Sound familiar?
There wasn’t a “give and take”, a debate of point and counter-point. It was simply “give” it, and you either “took it” or something was wrong with you; your intelligence or your motivation. Limbaugh (and to a lesser extent, Glen Beck) became the “model” for the new conservative movement. It’s how “conservatives” learned to “fight” for their cause. There’s a straight line from them to the Sean Hannity’s and Mark Levin’s and Steven Millers’ of today.
Jerry
The second figure was Jerry Springer (The Jerry Springer Show was one of Dad’s). Jerry Springer was originally a politician out of Cincinnati, who became a Democrat and Mayor, then fell from grace in a sex-for-money scandal. He recovered and returned to prominence. After a failed Gubernatorial race, Springer turned to television (just downstairs from Dad’s office), first as a commentator, then a news anchor, and finally as a host of his own show. The original idea was a Donahue kind of show, a talk show about serious political issues.
But Springer found that the more outlandish he got, the higher the ratings were. So the Jerry Springer show became synonymous with scandal: who’s your Daddy, I had sex with my step-mother, the man who was a girl, then couldn’t decide. Jerry had “professional referees” on site, able to break up physical altercations between “guests”, and sometimes, the audience.
But the real point was that the Springer Show blurred the lines between reality and “show”. It was all presented as “truth”, but it wasn’t. Americans suspended disbelief, because we were entertained by the craziness, shocked at the subject matter, and fascinated to see when the “conversation” would turn to physical blows (and who would win, the husband or the wife). It was, to put it concisely, coarse; the worst view of what of America was. And America loved it (and the company made a lot of money). Jerry sat back, shook his head, and seemed “above” the fray.
Channeling
With Limbaugh and Springer, insults became common place, and reality became blurred. It’s that “lineage” that brought us to “spectator” politics; the more outlandish, the better. It all sounds like a Trump Rally, doesn’t it? Trump tapped into all the tools, the derision, the open hatred, the breaking of every norm. But he didn’t start it: Rush and Jerry did, forty years ago.
So what about tonight’s debate? Expect Trump will channel Limbaugh. After all, as President, Trump awarded Rush the Presidential Medal of Freedom, “So much better than the Medal of Honor”. And while Harris may try to be more “Donahue”, in all likelihood she’ll be “Springer”, shaking her head at the craziness of Trump World.
A rational political debate is unlikely. But, don’t worry, it will sure be a show.
