Debasing the Debates: Lowering the Bar

A plethora of stories have permeated the media over the last week about how both Democratic and Republican parties, pundits, and partisans have been lowering the ‘expectations’ for their favorite son. This political tactic is based on the premise that if the candidate doesn’t do well that their side will be able to point to the proffered expectation that no one expected them to do well. A second factor contributing to this ‘claim the low ground’ mentality is that if will create the impression that the candidate rose to the challenge and outdid themselves in whipping their opponent.

Now I don’t object to the implication the parties are presenting, that they think the American public are complete idiots and that this positioning is inherently consistent with the very notion of someone being a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. In part this acceptance of both parties’ attitudes is to some degree confirmed by the fact that about an equal proportion of the voters are registered Republicans and as Democrats; thus prone to believe idiotic things. But is it really something that a candidate’s supporters should be proclaiming and championing this level of competency about their standard bearer?

Shouldn’t the standard be that the candidate is a competent, capable and a candid communicator who can present their views and plans to the public in a compelling and informative manner? Shouldn’t the expectation that the candidate is someone who provides the public with a reason to decide that the candidate’s positions are well thought out, demonstrate an insight and understanding of the nation’s issues and problems, and who would inspire the public to support the efforts and sacrifices that will be required to achieve the vision and goals set before the voters? If the candidate cannot do this then perhaps it’s not the case that the candidate is not a good debater, but rather that this candidate is not a viable candidate for the presidency.

I suppose the politicians that the country has today are a reflection of the parties’ lower values and standards, of their focus on ideology over substance and intelligence, and of their conversion to a monetary theology of campaign funders over a belief in American values. If you were to ask yourself, “Would I want a President only equal to the level of politicians that we have in Congress or the states that we have today?”, would your answer be yes?

So when I hear the ‘voices of the parties’ touting how enfeebled and inept their man’s going to be, I think I don’t want them to be president. I start off with my radar tuned into looking for confirmation that they are not viable contenders, for mistakes that add more bricks on the moron side of the balance, and to determine why they are so wrong for this job. If they do something that appears to be good, I assume I must have missed something in their answer that negates that interpretation. Yes, we remain in the land of ‘choosing the least of the worst’.

If you can’t raise the bar, then you are just letting your opponent appear to be in the contest rather than showing that they should have just remained a spectator who should have been watching someone else more qualified.