THERE IS REALLY NOTHING INTELLIGENT IN JOE BIDEN
The big winner in last night's presidential debate may have been H.L. Mencken, as his view on democracy seemed to be accepted by Americans across the country.
For one thing, President Trump stayed true to his WWE persona, as opposed to his bland first performance four years ago with Assumed President Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, there was Joe Biden, whose combination of short temper and low energy makes him look like a disappointing Chinese firecracker. In the middle, you had Chris Wallace reduced to begging the participants to follow the rules of the whole thing.
Nothing of real importance was discussed, of course. We still don't know if Joe Biden agrees with his party's mainstream when it comes to stacking the courts and removing the Senate filibuster (although we can be sure that his take on the issue would be important, even if he is elected). We don't know if President Trump recognizes the fragility of the debt-driven economic recovery, although in Chris Wallace's eyes this is "free market ideology." We don't know if anyone watching these debates is capable of changing their mind, or if the goal is simply not to discourage any potential supporters from mailing a ballot (or two).
However, we know two things: People are acknowledging the failures of American democracy, and there really is nothing smart about Joe Biden.
The first point is important. First, the act of "acknowledging" a problem does not mean that the problem is new.
While the media will predictably spin last night's circus as the latest example of Donald Trump shaming the presidency, the truth is that the presidential debates have long been sham. The 2012 debates were defined by an inaccurate fact-check by serious journalist Candy Crowley and the phrase "folders full of women" taken out of context. Before that, SNL's farces ended up doing more to frame the candidates than any performance in the debates (perhaps the decline of SNL is the true tragedy of American politics).
The superficial nature of presidential elections may not be a new phenomenon, but it should be noted that this was not always the case in American politics. In the past, party platforms offered substantive analysis of important issues and candidates were expected to have an operational understanding of serious issues. During the 1896 election, for example, the gold standard was such a prominent electoral issue that it figured prominently both in campaign literature and on candidate posters.
Unfortunately, there tends to be an inverse relationship between democratization and serious political campaigns. In the same way that mass-market products tend to be of lower quality than those in specialty stores, a political system based on who can simply convince the majority of American adults to vote for them may seem like an intellectual race down.
However, this is not true in all elections. For example, the issue of school choice was found to have a decisive impact on Florida's gubernatorial election in 2018. Studies found that Republican Ron DeSantis won 18 percent of the black female vote, even when he ran against what would have been the first black governor of the state. The recognition that Andrew Gillum's advocacy of traditional state schooling would have a direct impact on the quality of his children's education was enough to transcend many of the typical tribalist instincts that tend to shape national politics.
For those interested in improving governance in the United States, this is a strong argument in favor of decentralizing democracy. (For those who are not interested in improving government, there is another option.)
The second point may seem insignificant, but it is also important — Joe Biden is an example of the kind of mediocre talent rewarded by today's political system. Before his 47-year career in elected office, he had a brief career as a lawyer with the ambition of being elected senator and president. To achieve those ends, he falsified his resume to appear far more talented than he was.
THERE IS REALLY NOTHING INTELLIGENT IN JOE BIDEN
The big winner in last night's presidential debate may have been H.L. Mencken, as his view on democracy seemed to be accepted by Americans across the country.
For one thing, President Trump stayed true to his WWE persona, as opposed to his bland first performance four years ago with Assumed President Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, there was Joe Biden, whose combination of short temper and low energy makes him look like a disappointing Chinese firecracker. In the middle, you had Chris Wallace reduced to begging the participants to follow the rules of the whole thing.
Nothing of real importance was discussed, of course. We still don't know if Joe Biden agrees with his party's mainstream when it comes to stacking the courts and removing the Senate filibuster (although we can be sure that his take on the issue would be important, even if he is elected). We don't know if President Trump recognizes the fragility of the debt-driven economic recovery, although in Chris Wallace's eyes this is "free market ideology." We don't know if anyone watching these debates is capable of changing their mind, or if the goal is simply not to discourage any potential supporters from mailing a ballot (or two).
However, we know two things: People are acknowledging the failures of American democracy, and there really is nothing smart about Joe Biden.
The first point is important. First, the act of "acknowledging" a problem does not mean that the problem is new.
While the media will predictably spin last night's circus as the latest example of Donald Trump shaming the presidency, the truth is that the presidential debates have long been sham. The 2012 debates were defined by an inaccurate fact-check by serious journalist Candy Crowley and the phrase "folders full of women" taken out of context. Before that, SNL's farces ended up doing more to frame the candidates than any performance in the debates (perhaps the decline of SNL is the true tragedy of American politics).
The superficial nature of presidential elections may not be a new phenomenon, but it should be noted that this was not always the case in American politics. In the past, party platforms offered substantive analysis of important issues and candidates were expected to have an operational understanding of serious issues. During the 1896 election, for example, the gold standard was such a prominent electoral issue that it figured prominently both in campaign literature and on candidate posters.
Unfortunately, there tends to be an inverse relationship between democratization and serious political campaigns. In the same way that mass-market products tend to be of lower quality than those in specialty stores, a political system based on who can simply convince the majority of American adults to vote for them may seem like an intellectual race down.
However, this is not true in all elections. For example, the issue of school choice was found to have a decisive impact on Florida's gubernatorial election in 2018. Studies found that Republican Ron DeSantis won 18 percent of the black female vote, even when he ran against what would have been the first black governor of the state. The recognition that Andrew Gillum's advocacy of traditional state schooling would have a direct impact on the quality of his children's education was enough to transcend many of the typical tribalist instincts that tend to shape national politics.
For those interested in improving governance in the United States, this is a strong argument in favor of decentralizing democracy. (For those who are not interested in improving government, there is another option.)
The second point may seem insignificant, but it is also important — Joe Biden is an example of the kind of mediocre talent rewarded by today's political system. Before his 47-year career in elected office, he had a brief career as a lawyer with the ambition of being elected senator and president. To achieve those ends, he falsified his resume to appear far more talented than he was.
