Tonight is \u201cTHE DEBATE\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0Vice President Kamala Harris will meet Ex-President Donald Trump on the stage in Philadelphia.\u00a0\u00a0It\u2019s on ABC without an audience, but in front of the Nation and the World.\u00a0\u00a0How much can we expect?\u00a0\u00a0In the end, we will remain a Nation divided. But, as they said in 1968 in Chicago, \u201cThe whole World is watching\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We are a polarized Nation.\u00a0\u00a0There are 45% of American voters who will support Donald Trump, and 45% of American voters who will support Kamala Harris.\u00a0\u00a0That leaves 10% who are somehow undecided.\u00a0\u00a0But the most important factor in this November election is which candidate can motivate their own voters to show up.\u00a0\u00a0Of the 45% on both sides, there are \u201cdiehards\u201d, maybe 35% MAGA supporters, and, now with Harris, about the same for her.\u00a0\u00a0Who beyond the diehards shows up to vote; that will make all the difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Being divided over politics is nothing new.\u00a0\u00a0What is new in America is the vitriol and fear connected with political positions this year.\u00a0\u00a0For many diehards, it comes down to, \u201cChoose my candidate or I hate you”.\u00a0\u00a0And that\u2019s new for the modern era.\u00a0\u00a0In fact, you have to go back to the Civil War to find that kind of discord between supporters of one side or the other.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Back in the \u201cold days\u201d, the 1970\u2019s and 80\u2019s, 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\u2019t 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\u2019s right to make the choice. It doesn\u2019t feel like that anymore. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Families are divided.\u00a0\u00a0Conversations are carefully \u201ccurated\u201d. (That\u2019s the word of the month, everything is \u201ccurated\u201d from restaurant menu items to bed frame upgrades<\/em>).\u00a0\u00a0There are times you can speak your \u201ctruth\u201d, and times when a casual conversation could put you at risk.\u00a0\u00a0The traditional American Thanksgiving or Christmas is now conflicted, some topics \u201cverboten\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1976, I was on the Carter\/Mondale staff.\u00a0\u00a0Teachers had me into their classes to talk about campaigning. As a\u00a0\u00a0twenty year-old college student with a \u201cuniform\u201d blue blazer and a American Bicentennial flag tie (still hanging in the closet), I didn\u2019t pretend to be unbiased.\u00a0\u00a0But that was allowed, back then.\u00a0\u00a0Teachers let their students know that I was obviously biased, but a good source for what campaign \u201clife\u201d was about.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today, I don\u2019t think that could happen. Students would feel quite comfortable attacking \u201cthe other\u201d side, either way. Parents would be outraged. Teachers would be questioned for inappropriate class materials, or political bias. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So what happened in the 1980\u2019s and 90\u2019s that led to this change, from a time when we could mutually disagree without, as the saying goes, being disagreeable?\u00a0\u00a0Who\u2019s to blame for our current division, not just in politics, but in conversations?<\/p>\n\n\n\n I have an answer, but first, I need to give a \u201cfull disclosure\u201d notice.\u00a0\u00a0My father was the head of Multimedia Programs and Production.\u00a0\u00a0He created and sold individual television shows across the country, a process called \u201csyndication\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0His most famous show was \u201cThe Phil Donahue Show\u201d (Phil passed away a couple of weeks ago, the end of an era for my family<\/em>).\u00a0\u00a0So 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Remember that the late 1980\u2019s was still an era before cable TV took hold. Most of the programming America watched came \u201cover the air\u201d (no wires, you could watch TV for free \u2013 still can, though today it feels kind of like the rotary dial telephone \u2013 antique<\/em>). 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\u2019d all at least \u201ctried\u201d them once.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are two figures that I lay \u201cthe blame\u201d for America\u2019s path to being \u201cdisagreeable\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0The first is Rush Limbaugh.\u00a0\u00a0Limbaugh was better known for his radio broadcasts, but he also had a TV show for a few years.\u00a0\u00a0Rush brought a whole new style to conservative \u201ctalk show\u201d radio\/TV.\u00a0\u00a0He would make a point, then attack any who argued against him as not only wrong, but stupid.\u00a0\u00a0It was a machine gun spray against any other view than his own. He would never acknowledge even a single \u201cpoint\u201d by the other side.\u00a0\u00a0Listening to Limbaugh, or trying to have a discussion with his adherents, was a completely different, frustrating, \u201ctake no prisoners\u201d kind of political discussion.\u00a0\u00a0It was frustrating because no one listened to your points, they simply moved onto to their next talking point.\u00a0\u00a0Sound familiar?<\/p>\n\n\n\n There wasn\u2019t a \u201cgive and take\u201d, a debate of point and counter-point.\u00a0\u00a0It was simply \u201cgive\u201d it, and you either \u201ctook it\u201d or something was wrong with you; your intelligence or your motivation.\u00a0\u00a0Limbaugh (and to a lesser extent, Glen Beck) became the \u201cmodel\u201d for the new conservative movement.\u00a0\u00a0It\u2019s how \u201cconservatives\u201d learned to \u201cfight\u201d for their cause.\u00a0\u00a0There\u2019s a straight line from them to the Sean Hannity\u2019s and Mark Levin\u2019s and Steven Millers\u2019 of today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second figure was Jerry Springer (The Jerry Springer Show was one of Dad\u2019s). 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\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But Springer found that the more outlandish he got, the higher the ratings were. So the Jerry Springer show became synonymous with scandal: who\u2019s your Daddy, I had sex with my step-mother, the man who was a girl, then couldn\u2019t decide. Jerry had \u201cprofessional referees\u201d on site, able to break up physical altercations between \u201cguests\u201d, and sometimes, the audience. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But the real point was that the Springer Show blurred the lines between reality and \u201cshow\u201d. It was all presented as \u201ctruth\u201d, but it wasn\u2019t. Americans suspended disbelief, because we were entertained by the craziness, shocked at the subject matter, and fascinated to see when the \u201cconversation\u201d 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 \u201cabove\u201d the fray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With Limbaugh and Springer, insults became common place, and reality became blurred. It\u2019s that \u201clineage\u201d that brought us to \u201cspectator\u201d politics; the more outlandish, the better. It all sounds like a Trump Rally, doesn\u2019t it? Trump tapped into all the tools, the derision, the open hatred, the breaking of every norm. But he didn\u2019t start it: Rush and Jerry did, forty years ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So what about tonight\u2019s debate?\u00a0\u00a0Expect Trump will channel Limbaugh.\u00a0\u00a0After all, as President, Trump awarded Rush the Presidential Medal of Freedom, \u201cSo much better than the Medal of Honor\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0And while Harris may try to be more \u201cDonahue\u201d, in all likelihood she\u2019ll be \u201cSpringer\u201d, shaking her head at the craziness of Trump World.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n A rational political debate is unlikely. But, don\u2019t worry, it will sure be a show.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Rush<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Jerry<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Channeling<\/h3>\n\n\n\n