The first democratic debate was held this week, after much anticipation. The republican party had already held two high-profile debates, each with an "A" and "B" debate. One main reason for the republican party having more debates and having their debates sooner than the democrats party is because the republican party has more candidates than the democratic party. At one point, there were 17 major republican presidential candidates, with a few more obscure candidates running as well. Meanwhile, the democrats only have 6 candidates. I believe that this shows a sort of fracture in the ideology of the republican party. There are more moderate candidates, more extreme candidates from the Tea Party or Freedom Caucus, and then candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina who are not politicians and are almost "free agents" within the republican party. All of these candidates and their intra-party associations each represent different views and ideologies about major issues. There is an identity crisis within the republican party. On the other hand, the democrats have only 6 candidates, and only one, Bernie Sanders, is not strongly associated with the democratic party as a whole- Lincoln Chafee was once a republican, then and independent, and now a democrat. The democratic party has no identity crisis, and their first debate showed.
One of the biggest differences between the republican debates and the democratic debates was the focus of the conversation. In the republican debate, much more time was spent addressing ad hominem attacks between candidates. While this might draw in viewers, clicks, and other sources of revenue for the media companies that run the debate, but as far informing viewers as to the ideas of the politicians. At certain points, it even seemed as if the candidates genuinely disliked each other as people outside of their conflicts in the realm of politics. In stark contrast to the republican debate was the democratic debate, which featured very little, if no, dedication to ad hominem attacks. Rarely, Anderson Cooper or one of the other moderators would try and provoke a candidate, but it almost always got little response. An example of this was when Anderson Cooper asked Hillary Clinton to respond to Lincoln Chafee's statement on her email account, and Clinton responded with a simple "no", which also drew much applause from the crowd. I think that shows not only is there less of a fracture in the democratic party than the republican party in terms of ideologies, but also in terms of the actual candidates being more fond of other candidates, or at least being apple to appear so, during the debate.
In addition, there were actually moments that displayed unity and positivity. When the topic of Hillary Clinton's emails came up, Bernie Sanders replied that people are sick of hearing about her "damn emails"(Link). This prompted an eruption of laughter and applause from both the audience and Clinton herself and was followed by Clinton saying "thank you" and offering a smiling handshake towards Sanders, which Sanders accepted. Although the candidates did disagree on certain issues and policies, they usually did so in a much more controlled and mature manner than in the republican debates.
I believe that the differences in the democratic and republican debate show a few things. First, I believe that the sheer number of candidates in the republican debates has actually hurt their appearance with the public. It has lead to debates that seem to be more interested in forcing a candidate into saying something regrettable, and thus dropping out of the race, thinning out the field. This takes away from the substantive portion of the debate, or the part of the debate that is supposed to inform the public and help them make a smart voting decision. If this trend in republican debates continues, it could become so dangerous that voters are voting in primaries not knowing a candidate's view on a specific issue. Also, the republican debates have revealed split in the republican party between the extreme right in the Tea Party, the moderates, and the "free agents" like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina. On the other hand, the first democratic debate showed more party unity, and a more civil way of discussing policies, with much less focus on ad hominem attacks.
Completely agree, its ridiculous that the Republican Party can not narrow down this long list of candidates and its actually hurting the real contenders. With the Republican Party someone needs to step away from the crowd however, sadly it seems no one yet can do that.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your post. I can tell that you are passionate about it and you present very insightful points that get at the heart of some serious Republican party issues. It may benefit your blog to try to relate these points to some of the things we have been discussing in class a little more, or bring in an article/author we have discussed.
ReplyDeleteIt would be best if you can provide some links embedded into the body of the post, particularly to coverage or video of some of the debate moments you draw attention to, and some visuals would be good too – this would help take advantage of the virtues of the blog format. You make some very interesting points in the final paragraph on why you think the Democratic and Republican debates have played out so differently, but given our class subject matter, I would like to see the role of the media more integrated into that discussion. Have divisions within the Republican Party allowed the media more control over how the candidates are portrayed to the public? Why do you think Republican candidates have sometimes taken the bait on criticizing each other while the Democrats did so less? Has this changed more recently (the CNBC debate might be interesting to bring in here). You will want to read through for typos, some grammar issues, and capitalization (names of the parties should be capitalized).
ReplyDelete