Presidential Debates, Like Political Cartoons, Are Shallow
By Zachery Abramson | 10/05/2012 | Elections 2012, Headline, President | 28 Comments
Credit: Cagle Post
In the wake of Wednesday night’s spectacle, a surge of presidential debate political cartoons have flooded the internet that reflect an American public disillusioned with the debate and its format. The presidential debate and the political cartoons that became of it highlight the lack of substance in our political discussion. Many news outlets have characterized Romney’s presence as aggressive and commanding, labeling him the “winner” over Obama in their first spar. From his body language, to his attacks on Obama, to the way he treated the moderator, Jim Lehrer, most commentators have given Romney high marks. Most of the criticism of Obama was over what he did, not what he said.
The media has criticized Obama’s own performance as defensive and unprepared. And while the media focused on the candidates’ moves and words, many of these cartoons focus on the current debate format‘s ineffectiveness at providing an informed and accurate depiction of the candidates and their policies. Neither depicted the candidates’ stances on national issues.
Lately, there has been increasing criticism over the “non-partisan” CPD for perpetuating the two-party monopoly over our political discussion. Some argue that it is this bipartisan discourse that is largely responsible for the gridlock that has left many Americans disillusioned with our government. In many ways, Wednesday’s moderator Jim Lehrer reinforced this throughout the debate by repeatedly asking Romney and Obama how they differed on specific issues. In many cases, Obama and Romney’s policies are almost identical. Again, neither the media nor cartoonists focused on these important points.
Credit: Cagle Post
During the debate both candidates took liberty with exaggeration and truth. In many cases, the two candidates simply talked over the moderator or “pivoted” on his question. Cartoonists were quick to critique, and the reality in the press is that confidence and style has become more important than substance. Wednesday’s debate generally followed a single pattern: a few talking points for each candidate, followed by personal attacks and a quick quip. With broad media exposure and quick access to information, any actual discussion of the issues was lost in the commentary on literal performance.
In the last twenty-four hours alone, hundreds of memes have poked fun at things that have little to do with real policy discussion. Like the media storm created by Romney’s “47 percent” controversy, popular culture surrounding the presidential election is what holds the public’s short-term interest. In the meantime, many voters are still waiting for a real discussion of the country’s long-term health.
Caption: Cagle Post





Leave Your Comment →
28 Comments
Michael Higham
10.05.2012
@michaelhigham
Great post, Zach! Your writing is on point!
The broad talk and question-skewing is prominent on the local level, too. Local candidates often talk in generalities and fail to layout specific policy goals and specific ways to achieve those goals. It seems to be the norm in most cases.
My facebook feed blew up, too, with “Romney destroyed Obama!” or “Obama clearly beat Romney!” without substance from the comments. It perpetuates the problem when the public dialogue buys into the showmanship that politics has become.
Jane Susskind
10.05.2012
@jsusskind
Even before the debates were over, there were tweets and status updates about how Romney beat Obama…how can someone win before the debate is even over? The debates were judged purely off of how they looked. There were a lot of tweets about how Obama looked “old” or “tired” which influenced people’s opinions. I think that presidential debates are an important aspect of elections with historical significance, but the way the media treats them is not reflective of their importance.
William Boardman
10.12.2012
@williamboardman
Wait, it’s not the media making all those silly tweets.
William Boardman
10.12.2012
@williamboardman
Debates won’t improve without moderators who,
when the candidate doesn’t answer the question,
asks enough follow-up questions to either
get an answer or demonstrate the evasion clearly.
Ian Dawes
10.05.2012
@iandawes
Will the next debate (Oct. 11) between Vice President Biden and Rep. Ryan, on foreign and domestic policy, follow suit?
Cassidy Noblejas Bartolomei
10.05.2012
@cassidynb
Hopefully the parties pick up on enough articles like this one to realize that the debates won’t stay successful for much longer if they stay as meaningless as they have been.
Chad Peace
10.05.2012
@Chad_Peace
Pretty accurate … the debate is largely a sideshow. Anyone looking for real substance isn’t going to find it with all the sound bites. What gets me though is why we almost universally accept that attacks, silly quips, and disrespect for an aging moderator are acceptable for someone running for arguably the most powerful person in the world.
Lucas Eaves
10.05.2012
@lucaseaves
I have to admit I enjoyed all the political cartoons more than the debate. It is sad.
Jane Susskind
10.05.2012
@jsusskind
Me too Lucas :)
Jane Susskind
10.05.2012
@jsusskind
Really good commentary on this Zach. I also noticed that the questions were not “What’s your stance on this issue” rather “how do you differ from your opponent.” I think this is a really subtle detail that would have made a great story, but the media was focusing more on calling Obama out or trying to unravel the reason behind Obama’s “flop” because entertainment is more interesting to readers than subtle nuances.
Benjamin Foster
10.05.2012
@befoster87
Way to cut through the noise in this article, Zachery. Love to find a fellow Banana Slug on IVN!
After reading the article my immediate thought is, why as a nation do we accept presidential debates that are void of substance? The answer is even less clear to me after the praise former President Clinton received for his DNC speech. The speech stood out among others because it was clear, substantive, and policy focused. It appears to me the American public knows a good speech when they hear it but have a difficult time identifying a bad one.
Chad Peace
10.05.2012
@Chad_Peace
I think the people that can identify a bad one have largely tuned out .. don’t get all excited for the debates and conventions. The rest of us have just lowered our expectations, so when talking points can be delivered succinctly we think they’ve done a great job.
Elina Parizhkova
10.05.2012
Romney had all 3, confidence, style and substance!
Shirley Glass
10.05.2012
Man if you people can’t see what a goofball our President is then you need to get your head fixed. He is going to throw us under the bus if he gets another four years and you are going to just throw your vote away to somebody else. Geez!!!!!!
Sam Haiduc
10.05.2012
noooooooooooooooooooo!
Nancy Benhardus
10.05.2012
I believe we witnessed , confidence, style and substance on the part of the winner of the debate, Romney !!!!
Alex Gauthier
10.06.2012
@alexg
Neither candidate nor Lehrer had much substance to add to that debate. Unfortunately most have bought into the idea that ‘confidence’ and ‘style’ are appropriate substitutes for practical solutions based on facts.
Improperganda
10.06.2012
http://improperganda.com/2012/10/05/romney-its-varmint-hunting-season-2/
Bill Keaton
10.06.2012
Confidence and style are important….but more so are facts. Romney wins on the first, loses on the second.
Bonnie Lachowicz
10.06.2012
What is Obama’s detailed plan for our country? Is it fair share? That is all he talks about. I work hard all my life so that others can stay home and receive a check in the mail. How is that fair!!!!
William LaSalle
10.06.2012
he NDAA is just wrong. We have Human Rights and Freedoms in the United States. Don’t forget our government pushing Internet Restrictions with crap like SOPA, PICA, ACTA, CISPA, and Cyber Security, none of it is for you. Don’t forget our government letting the war in Afganistan lag on. Don’t forget our government destroying our Bill of Rights, Constitution, freedoms, and Human Rights.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States is what is different about the United States.
They are the reason people come here for freedom.
Do not let our government change that.
Vote Obama, all our Senators, and all our Represenatives out.
Carl Kirkendall
10.06.2012
So far, this seems to be a Republican site.
JK Spaeth
10.06.2012
Naw it’s just the shills in the comment section, as usual, poisoning the well…
Wes Alderson
10.06.2012
NOT a Republican site. I am a fellow independent and I will vote for either Jill Stein or Ron Paul as write-ins. Mr. La SAlle is incorrect – yes we have rights and freedom according to our constutution, but both parties want to take them away. It is up to independents to stop that from happening.
Michael Higham
10.06.2012
Carl Kirkendall, have you actually looked through IVN or read all the articles on particular issues? Part of the problem with our political dialogue is that we are sometimes quick to judge or label something as left or right, Dem or Rep. Yes there might be something that explains a certain side of an issue, but you will probably find another piece explaining the other side or an alternate solution. The point is to get people to talk to each other, not label each other and revert to typical talking points.
Perri McCary
10.06.2012
Right on. I consider myself an independent voter, while many of my friends ARE unapologetically Democrat and I understand why. But it doesn’t mean they don’t criticize their party. Far from it. For me, that makes them independents, too. Bill Moyers did a recent poll and it wasn’t true or false, or yes or no, but true, false, and it’s complicated.
William Braman
10.08.2012
with a record like obama’s i can’t see him getting reelected. be one of those elections where i’ll be voting against one instead of for one
laummiday
10.09.2012
cJaqgixz click the link qTwecyrr