Flim Flam Substitutes for Debate
So-called presidential debates are prescripted garbage.
by Stephen Lendman
So-called presidential debates are well-rehearsed, prescripted theater. Theater of the absurd best describes them. Election outcomes aren't influenced. They don't edify. They insult. Wednesday night was no exception.
Even some media scoundrels were underwhelmed. At least one was honest as far as his editors let him. London Guardian contributor Charles Ferguson headlined "America's duopoly of money in politics and manipulation of public opinion," saying:
"Behind the divisiveness lies a deeper bipartisan consensus in which donors own democracy and there are no votes (for) reform."
"Presidential campaigns aren't where you look for honest, serious" policy discussions. Candidates prefer "slogans." They steer clear of controversy.
"(S)ometimes, as with George W. Bush, we also get a moron." This election is different. We're "explicitly seeing the effects of America's new political duopoly" up close and personal.
It's not new. At most it's repackaged to look that way, but not to observers who know how things in America work.
Obama and Romney "completely (avoided or remained) dishonest about (key) economic issues." The bizarre was also evident. A Republican attacked a Democrat on unemployment. He, in turn, said give us more time. We'll fix things.
Obama's first term was spent wrecking them. Neither candidate plans undoing decades of damage.
Both know the score but won't say so. They also claim they'll "reform Washington." Neither means it.
They avoided serious issues begging for discussion. They include "causes of the financial crisis; the lack of prosecution of banks and bankers; sharply rising inequality in educational opportunity, income and wealth (disparity)".the impact of industrialized food on" health and skyrocketing food and healthcare costs; budget deficits and national debt; disappearing jobs not being replaced, and war and peace.
How can what's most important be omitted? How can either candidate claim he debated? Politics and honesty are mirror opposites. Both candidates ignore what most needs addressing.
Obama "can win because he's somewhat less bad, somewhat less utterly bankrupt, than the other guy. Welcome to America's new and improved two-party system." It's the same one, just more corrupt.