Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

The Questions At The So-Called Debates Should Reflect The Answers, Since The Answers Will Not Reflect The Questions

By       Message Lawrence Velvel     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

- Advertisement -

October 9, 2008

 Re:  A New Modest Proposal:  The Questions At The So-Called DebatesShould Reflect The Answers, Since The Answers Will Not Reflect The Questions.   

            I would like to make, in Swiftian words, a modest proposal.  This one is half in jest, but also half meant.

- Advertisement -
 

            Everyone know that straightforwardness, direct answers to questions, and honesty are pretty much dead in this country, right?  We know too in this regard that, even if  debates are a good way to arrive at truth -- which may be dubious because of their format, their emphasis on winning rather than truth, and their gotcha quality -- the purported “debates” between the candidates are not in fact debates.  As some have realized for decades, and as even the fool mainstream media is beginning to understand and say (especially after Sarah Palin), they are merely talking point speeches on the same general subjects by two people who often do not address either the question that was asked or the points made by the opponent.  It is dishonest, and to the viewer frustrating, when these talking point speeches are called debates.

 

            So here is my only-half-in-jest suggestion.  Moderators should not ask questions which candidates (dishonestly) will not answer and will instead use merely as springboards to their talking points.  That is, moderators should not, for example, ask concrete questions such as can we win the war in Iraq and if so how, or will the bailout help to overcome our economic difficulties or will it also be necessary to lessen mortgage payments, or should the government pay for the healthcare of persons who cannot afford it.  Instead, moderators should simply say such things as, “Senator, tell us for two minutes whatever you wish about the war in Iraq.”  Or “Governor, tell us whatever you wish for two minutes about the bailout,” or about healthcare, or about any other subject the moderator wants the candidate to speak on.  The candidate could then launch into his or her talking points, just as he or she will do anyway when the current types of questions are asked.  But at least there will be no dishonest pretense that a debate is going on, or that candidates are trying to answer the questions that are asked, or that each candidate is responding to the other’s points as in a true debate.

 

            The candidates are not going to change.  Regardless of what the question is, they are going to continue to repair to talking points just as they have for decades.  (One can see the wheels of the “candidatorial” mind turning:  “Ah hah.  Tom [or Gwen or Jim or whoever] is asking a question dealing with Iraq.  So I must say the following six things regardless of what the question is.”)  Since the candidates won’t change, and won’t  tailor their answers to the actual questions, for honesty’s sake why don’t we change the questions, why don’t we tailor the questions to the type of answers that we know are coming.  Tailoring the questions to the answers sounds backwards, no?  Yet, since we know what kinds of answers inevitably  are coming, why continue trying to kid anyone with the current type of questions.  Instead, let the questions reflect the answers because otherwise the answers won’t reflect the questions.  If Mohammed won’t come to the mountain, let the mountain come to Mohammed.  The suggestion sounds bizarre, but it reflects reality and honesty instead of reflecting what rarely if ever occurs and thus reflecting implicit dis honesty.*

* This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel.  If you wish to comment on the post, on the general topic of the post, or on the comments of others, you can, if you wish, post your comment on my website, VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com.  All comments, of course, represent the views of their writers, not the views of Lawrence R. Velvel or of the Massachusetts School of Law.  If you wish your comment to remain private, you can email me at Velvel@VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com.   

VelvelOnNationalAffairs is now available as a podcast.  To subscribe please visit VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com, and click on the link on the top left corner of the page.   The podcasts can also be found on iTunes or at www.lrvelvel.libsyn.com 

- Advertisement -
 

In addition, one hour long television book shows, shown on Comcast, on which Dean Velvel, interviews an author, one hour long television panel shows, also shown on Comcast, on which other MSL personnel interview experts about important subjects, conferences on historical and other important subjects held at MSL, presentations by authors who discuss their books at MSL, a radio program (What The Media Won’t Tell You) which is heard on the World Radio Network (which is on Sirrus and other outlets in the U.S.), and an MSL journal of important issues called The Long Term View, can all be accessed on the internet, including by video and audio.  For TV shows go to: www.mslaw.edu/about_tv.htm; for book talks go to:  www.notedauthors.com; for conferences go to:  www.mslawevents.com; for The Long Term View go to: www.mslaw.edu/about­_LTV.htm; and for the radio program go to: www.velvelonmedia.com.

  
- Advertisement -

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Lawrence R. Velvel is a cofounder and the Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, and is the founder of the American College of History and Legal Studies.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Preliminary Memorandum of the Justice Robert H. Jackson Conference on Federal Prosecutions of War Criminals

Investing With Bernie Madoff: How It Happened, What Happened, What Might Be Done (Part I)

Irving Picard's Three Percent Commission In The Madoff Case.

Alan Dershowitz on Whether to Prosecute Executive Branch Criminals

Madoff And The Mafia: A Mere Speculation Or Almost A Sure Thing?

It Appears That The Madoff Scam Was Not, Repeat Not, A Ponzi Scheme.