Candidates should drop catchy phrases, start tailoring to intelligent audience
Tomorrow, the games begin. In what could be called the epitome of American ideals, two presidential hopefuls will compete head to head, clobbering each other with the jabs, hooks and crosses of their opposing ideologies in order to persuade voters to believe in their policies. They enter as equals, unbiased mediators referee the answers and on Election Day the people weigh in to determine which platform is the winner. It’s the perfect competition to determine the future of the country.
That is, if it were about the future of the country.
It’s nothing new to claim these presidential debates are less about opposing ideologies and more about how the candidate is remembered. Many credited John F. Kennedy’s victory in 1960 with his handsome appearance juxtaposed to Richard Nixon’s jowly demeanor. In addition, Nixon infamously refused stage makeup, making him appear sweaty and nervous. Since then, presidential debates have been the battleground of good posture and concise sentences rather than the actual ideologies and facts.
This election will be nothing different, or so it seems. According to a recent New York Times article, Mitt Romney’s campaign team “has concluded that debates are about creating moments and has equipped him with a series of zingers that he has memorized and has been practicing on aides since August.” The Romney camp has decided that in a world of three-minute singles, two-minute YouTube sketches and 10-second sound bites, the facts and arguments that properly address the moderator’s question and the opponent’s answers are of little importance.
Worst of all, they’re right.
It is the same reason lawyers use quick and catchy themes in court for the jury to remember instead of winding arguments and logical proofs: “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit;” “Danny Dawson didn’t drive drunk.” The list goes on and on. These mnemonic devices are helpful in tying a case together, and sometimes that simple rhyming or alliterative phrase can sway a juror. While these forms of rhetorical tact have been in existence since the founding of America (the famous simplicity of “Join or Die” during the revolution), one has to wonder, are they aiding the discussion or detracting from it? Attorneys, usually in the same lesson on creating a good theme, are taught they should write their arguments keeping in mind the average juror has the intelligence of a third-grader. Should the fate of our nation be decided by which candidate most panders to the third-grader in us?
President Barack Obama’s campaign is not immune to these tactics, and his advisers have been mercilessly telling him to cut down his responses, saying the people want a president, not a professor.
But why not? Why don’t we look for intelligence in one of the highest offices in our country? This election season, instead of making decisions based on which candidate makes us feel good, we should focus on the candidate who points this country in the direction it needs to go.