September 11, 2001, Nixon vs JFK, Apple's future, Damodaran on decline, Berkshire's book value, Founder mode, Chasing dividends, Caro on LBJ, Peter Lynch, Epicureanism, Mt Everest, and more ...
I tend to agree that "This is an insult to Americans who are concerned about the future of our country." But I wonder if candidates (like Roman emperors) aren't just giving "the people" what they want (bread and circuses). Assuming there's sufficient demand for intelligent debate that didn't dumb down substantive issues to soundbites that roused their side or zinged the other, why isn't it being supplied? Are leaders leading or following? Are followers following or leading? What do the debates we're getting tell us about supply and demand? Is supply inelastic, or is demand very strong? Shouldn't we assume that a lot of very smart people contemplated the type of debate that would likely benefit their candidates. And, we could see what they concluded on our screens. Shouldn't this cause us to wonder about the size of the segment of US voters who really want to be treated with "a great deal of respect, as intelligent citizens worthy of a discussion of the issues facing the country"? Are there any optimistic answers to these questions?
I have nothing optimistic to offer. Rather than the 1960 debate, I could have just as easily posted the 1992 debate between Bush, Clinton, and Perot as an example of how far we have fallen as a country. 1992 was the first Presidential election I could participate in and there was a substantive discussion of issues, with Perot bringing much of the intellectual seriousness into the debate. The future of the country, both in terms of domestic policy and foreign policy, was discussed by serious people. And the result of the debates had an actual impact during the 1990s in terms of the budget deficit. No such discussion, not even a glimmer of it, exists today.
Are politicians giving the people what they want in this vapid dialogue? It is tempting to say yes, because the people are so woefully uneducated about our system, being deprived of a real education in which civic virtue is even discussed, yet we also have poll after poll showing that people are angry about the current state of affairs and do not trust politicians of either party. This is precisely why Trump came to power in 2016 -- he seemed to represent something different compared to typical politicians. Unfortunately, Trump is not a truth teller, as Perot was, and he has established more of a cult than a political following. But the same can be said for the MSM/Democratic alliance. There was not even mention of the great scam that was attempted on the American people, with Joe Biden clearly senile but propped up by the MSM/Democrats until the first debate made his senility obvious beyond question. Harris, who is either culpable in this scam or has been totally sidelined and was unaware of Biden's condition, was not even asked a single question about what happened and how she came to be the nominee without a single vote being cast in her favor during the primaries. Biden was clearly forced to withdraw. Then the DNC simply named Harris as the nominee. All the talk of "mini primaries" in which the people would get a voice were discarded. So much for the "defenders of democracy."
The two party system represents two sides of the same corrupt coin and nothing will improve until this situation changes. As I said, I have no reason to be optimistic. The United States is very sadly a nation in decline, and I see no leaders on the horizon who seem ready to level with the American people and bring about a turnaround. I hope that I am wrong for the sake of younger generations.
I tend to agree that "This is an insult to Americans who are concerned about the future of our country." But I wonder if candidates (like Roman emperors) aren't just giving "the people" what they want (bread and circuses). Assuming there's sufficient demand for intelligent debate that didn't dumb down substantive issues to soundbites that roused their side or zinged the other, why isn't it being supplied? Are leaders leading or following? Are followers following or leading? What do the debates we're getting tell us about supply and demand? Is supply inelastic, or is demand very strong? Shouldn't we assume that a lot of very smart people contemplated the type of debate that would likely benefit their candidates. And, we could see what they concluded on our screens. Shouldn't this cause us to wonder about the size of the segment of US voters who really want to be treated with "a great deal of respect, as intelligent citizens worthy of a discussion of the issues facing the country"? Are there any optimistic answers to these questions?
I have nothing optimistic to offer. Rather than the 1960 debate, I could have just as easily posted the 1992 debate between Bush, Clinton, and Perot as an example of how far we have fallen as a country. 1992 was the first Presidential election I could participate in and there was a substantive discussion of issues, with Perot bringing much of the intellectual seriousness into the debate. The future of the country, both in terms of domestic policy and foreign policy, was discussed by serious people. And the result of the debates had an actual impact during the 1990s in terms of the budget deficit. No such discussion, not even a glimmer of it, exists today.
Are politicians giving the people what they want in this vapid dialogue? It is tempting to say yes, because the people are so woefully uneducated about our system, being deprived of a real education in which civic virtue is even discussed, yet we also have poll after poll showing that people are angry about the current state of affairs and do not trust politicians of either party. This is precisely why Trump came to power in 2016 -- he seemed to represent something different compared to typical politicians. Unfortunately, Trump is not a truth teller, as Perot was, and he has established more of a cult than a political following. But the same can be said for the MSM/Democratic alliance. There was not even mention of the great scam that was attempted on the American people, with Joe Biden clearly senile but propped up by the MSM/Democrats until the first debate made his senility obvious beyond question. Harris, who is either culpable in this scam or has been totally sidelined and was unaware of Biden's condition, was not even asked a single question about what happened and how she came to be the nominee without a single vote being cast in her favor during the primaries. Biden was clearly forced to withdraw. Then the DNC simply named Harris as the nominee. All the talk of "mini primaries" in which the people would get a voice were discarded. So much for the "defenders of democracy."
The two party system represents two sides of the same corrupt coin and nothing will improve until this situation changes. As I said, I have no reason to be optimistic. The United States is very sadly a nation in decline, and I see no leaders on the horizon who seem ready to level with the American people and bring about a turnaround. I hope that I am wrong for the sake of younger generations.