posted
So I had an idea last night while I was in the shower, where of course, everyone's best ideas really are formed.
I was thinking about all the issues at hand in this country (this country being America). Energy, Social Security, the Military, the Economy, Taxes, the Environment, Healthcare...
And I was thinking about just how apathetic the public is. I think a lot of the apathy comes from a large portion of the people thinking they don't have the time to possibly learn about all the issues. Personally I spend a lot of time reading articles on CNN, the BBC, and elsewhere, trying as hard as I can to stay up on every issues that's at hand. And even trying as hard as I can, with what little time I have, I fail miserably.
So I can see why some people wouldn't want to bother trying at all, like my parents. They work more than 40 hours a week each, and are involved in other things around the community. My dad is heavily involved in the local schools and politics there, but that leaves him little time to get involved with national issues. They just don't have the time, with what little free time they have, they want to relax and enjoy life.
Thus we have our problem. And the solution is?
At first I thought of creating a giant fund for each political party. Say, 100 million dollars fo the democrats and another 100 million for the republicans. They could each spend that money on advertising to educate the people on their positions.
But that really only creates a giant slush fund for both sides to abuse and attack each other with, there has to be a better way.
And so I've come to this, my wish for a new way of doing things in America. On a regular basis, prime time television should host debates between the two major parties on issues at hand. The government should have to pay the networks for it, there's no reason why they should lose money, but that's the smaller issue. If many Americans feel they don't have time, then we will make time for them. Take away the option to watch the OC, or Desperate Housewives, and for one or two hours, give them a real chance (with few saucy alternatives) to take part in the political process of the nation.
I really think this would help educate the people about positions and issues. They can tune in for an hour and watch, say Hillary Clinton debate Tom DeLay on the Energy crisis, or Nancy Pelosi debate John McCain on Social Security. They each present their sides, try to poke holes in each other's arguments, ask questions, really get into the nitty gritty. Now more people feel involved in the process, more people know what the issues are, and more importantly they know what their options are. If they don't like what happens, it will change their vote in the next election.
It brings an element of accountability into government too. People will know the position of their candidate on these issues, they will have seen them at the debate arguing about it, and will know how they voted on the bill. Senators and Presidents will have a tough time dodging hard questions, and throwing non specifics at us because right now we are a docile public, but we don't have to be.
Like Roosevelt's fireside chats, eventually Americans could look forward to these debates as a chance to get involved, be knowledgable citizens, support their party or try to fix it if they feel it is going astray, learn the details of the legislation that will soon affect their lives.
No it won't fix the political process, but it might help shake the dust off of it, it might jumpstart it. It might make it a little better.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't tell you the number of times I've come up with almost that exact same idea. How many times I've wished it would be so.
Chances of it happening: 100 trillion to 1 against.
Its not in the interest of the people who currently run the government (who wants to be accountable), its not in the interest of the networks (who wants to give up freedom), and it would take some serious action on the part of the apathetic public to get it to happen. Fat. Chance.
posted
There is an alternative reason people don't care. They don't want to, they find it boring, and they have better things to do. So they think, that is.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I agree with Raia that you have a good idea.
Unfortunately, I also agree Alcon: the vested interests involvede would not get behind such a plan and so it has no chance. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Take away the option to watch the OC, or Desperate Housewives, and for one or two hours, give them a real chance (with few saucy alternatives) to take part in the political process of the nation.
I dont think taking away what people like is such a great idea.
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I can see why some people wouldn't want to bother trying at all, like my parents. They work more than 40 hours a week each, and are involved in other things around the community. My dad is heavily involved in the local schools and politics there, but that leaves him little time to get involved with national issues. They just don't have the time, with what little free time they have, they want to relax and enjoy life.
So instead, you want to shove politics down their throat while they're trying to relax?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're saying it's too much to ask Americans to watch a debate on television for two hours once in awhile?
I didn't realize we were at the point when asking that little of a citizen was considered too much of a burden.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds like a good idea to me! But there is a catch.
A long time ago, many people in America considered debates entertaining as well as informative, so it became a tradition in my church to hold debates. Eventually these debates became a vehicle for bashing the opposition. Nowadays "liberals" simply refuse to debate, and many people consider "conservatives" churls for even proposing to do so. Debating has come to be seen as a mean and nasty way to go after a problem.
For different reasons, I suspect that the same thing would be said of any real and honest debate in most parts of America. The moment something really hard-hitting was aired, people would become furious at the person who dared to mention such an ugly truth.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't they have a system in Israel that forces candidates into informative debates?
And I think I read about an idea similar to yours being passed around recently. I say "recently," but it probably started in the 1970's. Something about using PBS airtime.... I'll check around and see.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're saying it's too much to ask Americans to watch a debate on television for two hours once in awhile?
Believe it or not, yes. I think it's a good idea, but can you imagine how this would go over?
The parties will try to change the format from an actual debate into a joint news conference where they can state their opinion and make snide comments about the other side without actually speaking to each other. Worse yet, we could end up with more staged town hall meetings. Have you seen the British town hall meetings with Blair (on C-SPAN)? Nothing like ours. Here, most of our town hall meetings are characterized by party supporters expressing their love for a platform and detractors asking loaded questions about it.
Some will say that the government is trying to impose two ideologies on us while neglecting all others. Every party in America will want in-- and what will we use to decide who's "in" and who's "out"? By membership numbers? A count of signitures on a petition? Amount of money accumulated? It's hard to draw the line anywhere, and we won't be able to use the traditional labels of liberal and conservative.
Most Americans will simply try to get out of it. Take jury duty, for instance: it's our civic duty, but most people when avoid it when possible-- and that's mandatory. Meanwhile, voter turnout is relatvily low because, as you mentioned, a lot of people don't care.
And finally, the networks will do everything in their power to prevent this, saying that there are other channels for politics ("But that's what we have C-SPAN for!"). They'll argue that people sit down in front of their televisions to escape reality (often by watching "reality" TV, oddly enough). Television is controlled by corporations, and like all businesses, they want to make money. Unless they are heavily compensated, they won't consider it.
Maybe one day, somebody will create a reality TV show about politics. But then, perhaps that is what people find so appealling about the 24-hour news channels.
posted
Isn't that what moderators are for? To take the debators to task and get answers out of them?
There are still a few worthy media people in America I would trust the job to, though not to many.
And networks put up with State of the Union Address, National Addresses, the actual Presidential debates, national press conferences and a host of other things. They can be convinced to host this event as well.
Deep down, I really believe this, deep down somewhere hidden within most Americans is a desire for knowledge. It has been repressed by a couple decades of distancing. The government has been distancing itself from the people, and television has been in the other corner beckoning is.
If government reached out, and if television gave us a little push, we'd give it a try. Part of why we want to escape into television is that we feel so cut off from the process. Get us back into it, and we may not want to escape so often.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
