|
Framing the Debate
|
||
|
During last year’s election debates, the Republicans’ taunt was, “The Democrats don’t have a plan. All they can do is criticize ours.” Sad to say, there’s a grain of truth in that accusation. But the problem is deeper than the electorate ever knew. And the weight of public opinion swung to the Republicans. Why was that? Largely because of the nature of debate. But most of the electorate has never seen or heard a debate—not in the academic sense. If you invited the typical voter to a “forensics tournament,” if he had any notion at all about what you were saying, probably he would think he were going to watch some attorneys play golf. What passes for political debate in America is nothing more than a staged political show controlled by the moderator—a representative of the media, which control the communications outlets as well as the show. And as soon as the show is over, the media reps tell us who “won.” Political debate in this country is little more than Meet The Press dressed up for prime time. As any high school debater knows, the proposition of a debate is framed as an attack upon the status quo: “Resolved, that the blah blah should yadda yadda the zamma zamma. This proposition advocates a change in the status quo—the current state of affairs, the way things are. The burden of proof is upon the affirmative who argues for this change. In the stock issues case, the affirmative asserts the need for a change, presents a plan for a change, and establishes the benefits of the change produced by that plan. And the affirmative’s responsibility is to define the terms of the proposition—which also is its privilege, as it can frame the definitions as it wishes. The negative is charged with defending the status quo from the affirmative’s attack. And other than in exceptional cases, the negative is obligated to accept the affirmative’s definitions. Those are the rules of the game—at least in “real” debate. So what were the Republicans attacking? All the humanitarian programs put in place since the days of FDR: Social Security, minimum wage, Medicare, education, environmental protection and all the rest—society’s protection of its poorest, weakest, sickest, and most helpless. And why didn’t the Democrats present any plans of their own? Because it was their plans that were under attack. Their responsibility was not to advance new plans. Their responsibility was to defend the old plans—the ones they had helped put into place.
|
And what were the names given to these new plans? How were the terms defined? Tax Relief, Clear Skies Initiative, Healthy Forests, No Child Left Behind, Welfare Reform, National Security, Tort Reform—to protect us from Frivolous Lawsuits and Trial Lawyers. Ignore the fact that the bulk of tax relief went to the wealthiest while the rest of us were stuck with the burden of today’s expenses and tomorrow’s debt—down to our grandchildren. Ignore the fact that the polluters are now freer to make our skies dirtier. Ignore the fact that our national forests are now to be turned over to timber interests whose number one value is profit. Ignore the fact that the proposed education program was purposely underfunded, leaving many children behind. Ignore the fact that welfare has been reformed primarily by making many people who need it the most ineligible for it. Ignore the fact that reforming the tort code means guilty corporations won’t have to pay much, if anything, for their misdeeds. Ignore the fact that public defense attorneys will no longer be able to bring meaningful lawsuits that are anything but frivolous against ravaging, rampaging, pillaging corporations. So how could the Republicans get away with it? Easy. They were on the offensive, attacking the status quo, which, in the minds of many, is itself a “dirty word.” And how did they define their terms? They didn’t. They never defined a single one of them. They simply named the terms. And they gave them names that were very emotionally appealing to the American electorate. And in every case, the result of the proposed action was precisely the opposite of what the name suggested. Any competent collegiate debater would have called the opposition’s hand and demanded a definition of terms. Absent such definition, the clash would stop, the debate would be over, and the affirmative would lose by default. But in real life the so-called debates—the staged shows—continued and the American electorate lost. The Republicans are masters of illusion. You know, the stage magician, the slight-of-hand artist, the person who entertains you with his ability to convince you that what he’s showing you is reality, when it’s all in your mind! After all, you’ve probably watched as the Statue of Liberty disappeared right before your eyes on the TV screen. Or the lady in the cage was replaced by a tiger. But the big difference is that the Republicans’ show is not really all that entertaining, the price of a ticket is unbearable, and the consequences are devastating. The next time you hear the Republicans taunt the Democrats for a proposal of their own, just be aware that you’re being hoodwinked. And keep your hand on your wallet! --Bob Hartsell, Ph.D. |
|