Trending
Televised campaign debates have a rough reputation in the United States for very good reason. The format doesn't allow for significant clashes of ideas. The candidates are often over-coached and rely on their stump speeches more than their God-given rhetorical abilities. And the topics are rarely exciting enough to engage the audience.
With this said, the art of rhetoric and the debate as a format are still alive, even if the television tried to hide them. They are asking Dan Meuser and Rachel Wallace to answer the call. I ask for a slice of your time to make this case in three points. First, the value in the tradition of American campaign debates. Second, the importance of debate at a local level. And finally, the necessity of debate for both the candidate and the voter.
When news coverage and punditry reach for the history of "the debate" in American politics, two instances are often surfaced. The Kennedy-Nixon clash and the Lincoln-Douglas debate series. Both are important. The former because it brought a combination of rhetoric and visuals to the masses that had not been seen before. This debate birthed the televised shows that we have now in national politics. The latter matters because it defined what a debate should be. It was in the crucible of the L-D series where Lincoln was able to define himself as a truly great statesman against the established order that Douglas represented. Before I move on, the only way that this series of debates happened was because Douglas, the frontrunner at the time, agreed to have them. He had the courage and the conviction to share his beliefs and ideas to people who did not agree with him. With an opponent that he was not required to engage with. What this letter is asking is for a return to this style of civic discussion, not the packaged, consumable product that has been at the heart of televised debates since Kennedy and Nixon.
One common turnoff from national level debates is the distance that they have from the issues that actually affect day to day life. For example, many presidential debates have a lot to do with taxes, foreign policy, etc. A suite of issues that concern the business conducted in Washington that, for many people, are hard to understand. In these cases, issues are abstracted so much that it can be easy to lose the actual point that is being made.
Local debates have the benefit of giving airtime to issues that carry localized meaning. For instance, the recent push for data centers in rural PA. That is a topic that national politicians will not comment on in any significant depth. However in a local debate, these issues have the room to breathe and to be given the time to be discussed that they deserve. Especially when projects such as data centers have more knock-on effects than any tax policy will at a local level.
To the common voter, I urge you to get involved and ensure that these candidates meet and tell you directly what they stand for. In a time where partisanship informs so much of our political lives, it is imperative that the person behind the party is given their moment to make their own case.
With this case made, I urge both candidates who seek to represent the Pennsylvanians of the 9th district to agree to let their ideas clash, and suspend the influence of money. To carry on the American tradition that has served our history for generations.
JARED GARRISON
Williamsport
Submitted by Virtual Newsroom