President Barack Obama walks past Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the first presidential debate. Photograph: AP
The way the two major parties control the presidential debates is a perfect microcosm of how political debates are restricted in general. Though typically shrouded in secrecy, several facts about this process have recently come to light and they are quite instructive.
I was on Democracy Now this morning along with George Farah discussing the ways these debates, designed to cast the appearance of fostering vibrant exchanges, are actually intended to constrict the range of debated views as much as possible. My segment (and the transcript to it) can be seen here, but it was the commentary of Farah - who is a genuine expert in the history of presidential debates - that I found revealing.
He described how the two political parties in the 1990s joined forces to wrest control over the presidential debates away from the independent League of Women Voters, which had long resisted the parties' efforts to shield their presidential candidates from genuine surprise or challenge. Now run by the party-controlled Commission on Presidential Debates, these rituals are designed to do little more than " eliminate spontaneity" and "exclude all viable third-party voices". Citing a just-leaked 21-page "memorandum of understanding" secretly negotiated by the two campaigns to govern the rules of the debates, Farah recounted:
Under this elaborate regime, the candidates "aren't permitted to ask each other questions, propose pledges to each other, or walk outside a 'predesignated area.'" Worse, "the audience members posing questions aren't allowed to ask follow-ups (their mics will be cut off as soon as they get their questions out). Nor will moderator Candy Crowley." The rules even "forbid television coverage from showing reaction shots of the candidates".
All of this means, as Farah put it:
The debates are paid for by large corporate sponsors, including Anheuser-Busch Companies. As Jilani writes, "in the past, the tobacco industry, AT&T, and others have all been sponsors." And as Farah describes, with all that sponsorship comes the standard benefits:
Here then, within this one process of structuring the presidential debates, we have every active ingredient that typically defines, and degrades, US democracy. The two parties collude in secret. The have the same interests and goals. Everything is done to ensure that the political process is completely scripted and devoid of any spontaneity or reality.
All views that reside outside the narrow confines of the two parties are rigidly excluded. Anyone who might challenge or subvert the two-party duopoly is rendered invisible.
Lobbyists who enrich themselves by peddling their influence run everything behind the scenes. Corporations pay for the process, which they exploit and is then run to bolster rather than threaten their interests. The media's role is to keep the discourse as restrictive and unthreatening as possible while peddling the delusion that it's all vibrant and free and independent and unrestrained. And it all ends up distorting political realities far more than illuminating them while wildly exaggerating the choices available to citizens and concealing the similarities between the two parties.
To understand the US political process, one can just look to how these sham debates are organized and how they function. This is the same process that repeats itself endlessly in virtually every other political realm.
Glenn Greenwald
I was on Democracy Now this morning along with George Farah discussing the ways these debates, designed to cast the appearance of fostering vibrant exchanges, are actually intended to constrict the range of debated views as much as possible. My segment (and the transcript to it) can be seen here, but it was the commentary of Farah - who is a genuine expert in the history of presidential debates - that I found revealing.
He described how the two political parties in the 1990s joined forces to wrest control over the presidential debates away from the independent League of Women Voters, which had long resisted the parties' efforts to shield their presidential candidates from genuine surprise or challenge. Now run by the party-controlled Commission on Presidential Debates, these rituals are designed to do little more than " eliminate spontaneity" and "exclude all viable third-party voices". Citing a just-leaked 21-page "memorandum of understanding" secretly negotiated by the two campaigns to govern the rules of the debates, Farah recounted:
"We have a private corporation that was created by the Republican and Democratic parties called the Commission on Presidential Debates. It seized control of the presidential debates precisely because the League was independent, precisely because this women's organization had the guts to stand up to the candidates that the major-party candidates had nominated. And instead of making public these contracts and resisting the major-party candidates' manipulations, the commission allows the candidates to negotiate these 21-page contracts that dictate all the fundamental terms of the debates."Gawker's John Cook has an excellent breakdown of the 21-page memo. In his piece, entitled "Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Sniveling Cowards", Cook details how the rules imposed on these debates demonstrate that, above all else, "both campaigns are terrified at anything even remotely spontaneous happening."
Under this elaborate regime, the candidates "aren't permitted to ask each other questions, propose pledges to each other, or walk outside a 'predesignated area.'" Worse, "the audience members posing questions aren't allowed to ask follow-ups (their mics will be cut off as soon as they get their questions out). Nor will moderator Candy Crowley." The rules even "forbid television coverage from showing reaction shots of the candidates".
All of this means, as Farah put it:
Making matters worse still, the Commission is run by lobbyists and funded by large corporations. As Zaid Jilani writes today, the two Commission co-chairmen are former GOP Chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and former Clinton spokesman Michael D. McCurry. Fahrenkopf is one of the nation's leading lobbyists for the gaming industry, while McCurry advises a long list of corporate clients including the telecom industry.
"The town hall debate we're going to see tonight is the most constrained and regulated town hall debate in presidential debate history. The first town hall debate was introduced in 1992, and no one knew what anyone was going to ask, none of the audience members were going to ask. The moderator could ask any follow-up questions. It was exciting, and it was real.
"Well, President George H.W. Bush stumbled in response to an oddly worded question about the federal deficit, and the candidates - the campaigns have panicked and have attempted to avoid that kind of situation from happening again. In 1996, they abolished follow-up questions from the audience.
"In 2004, they began requiring that every single question asked by the audience be submitted in advance on an index card to the moderator, who can then throw out the ones he or she does not like. And that's why the audience has essentially been reduced, in some ways, to props, because the moderator is still ultimately asking the questions.
"And this election cycle is the first time that the moderator herself is prohibited from asking follow-up questions, questions seeking clarification. She's essentially reduced to keeping time and being a lady with a microphone."
The debates are paid for by large corporate sponsors, including Anheuser-Busch Companies. As Jilani writes, "in the past, the tobacco industry, AT&T, and others have all been sponsors." And as Farah describes, with all that sponsorship comes the standard benefits:
"FARAH: 'First, the just nice advertising, of course. They get to - you know, Philip Morris sponsored one of the presidential debates, paid $250,000 and got to hang its banner in the post-debate spin room that was seen throughout the country. But more importantly, they get access, and they get to show support for both major parties.'Meanwhile, the moderators were selected to ensure that nothing unexpected is asked and that only the most staid and establishment views are heard. As journalism professor Jay Rosen put it when the names of the moderators were unveiled, using terms to describe those views that are acceptable in Washington media circles and those which are "fringe":
"AMY GOODMAN: 'The major parties on their podiums have Bud Light on the podium?'
"FARAH: 'Not yet. We're getting there. We're getting there, Amy. But they get to show support for both major parties. How often can corporations find a way to make a single donation that strengthens both the Republican and Democratic parties and get a tax deduction for that kind of donation? So it's a rare contribution. And it also gives them access. They get to go to the actual debate themselves and rub shoulders at private receptions with the campaigns and their staff.'"
"In order to be considered as a candidate for moderator you have to be soaked in the sphere of consensus, likely to stay within the predictable inner rings of the sphere of legitimate controversy, and unlikely in the extreme to select any questions from the sphere of deviance."
Here then, within this one process of structuring the presidential debates, we have every active ingredient that typically defines, and degrades, US democracy. The two parties collude in secret. The have the same interests and goals. Everything is done to ensure that the political process is completely scripted and devoid of any spontaneity or reality.
All views that reside outside the narrow confines of the two parties are rigidly excluded. Anyone who might challenge or subvert the two-party duopoly is rendered invisible.
Lobbyists who enrich themselves by peddling their influence run everything behind the scenes. Corporations pay for the process, which they exploit and is then run to bolster rather than threaten their interests. The media's role is to keep the discourse as restrictive and unthreatening as possible while peddling the delusion that it's all vibrant and free and independent and unrestrained. And it all ends up distorting political realities far more than illuminating them while wildly exaggerating the choices available to citizens and concealing the similarities between the two parties.
To understand the US political process, one can just look to how these sham debates are organized and how they function. This is the same process that repeats itself endlessly in virtually every other political realm.
Glenn Greenwald
The readers of The Guardian have it:
CreatureAdam
America isn't the free-market loving democracy that the transparent propaganda, gullible citizens and unintelligent politicians like to proclaim. So tell us something we didn't notice.
Thomas Jefferson has surely turned in his grave so many times by this point that his soul is dizzier than Felix Baumgartner must have been when he went into that tailspin.
exkiodexian
The last four paragraphs in this piece are why I read Greenwald. These four paragraphs are so lucidly, accurately, and beautifully written - they should be required reading for all Americans who need to get their heads out of their rears. If only they knew how badly our Democracy has been hijacked, perhaps we could move toward meaningful change. Real Democracy.
GlennGreenwald
Response to bloopie2, 16 October 2012 9:43PM
rrheard
Response to GlennGreenwald, 16 October 2012 11:01PM
Yeah come on GG lighten up. Imperialism, duplicity, drones, erosion of civil liberties, economic corruption, hypocrisy, unnecessary wars, death of innocents . . .
You're the angriest person ever. Don't you ever get tired of being a one trick pony? Surely there is something, somewhere, that could give you reason to write an article about something other than how the US is the most evil country in the history of the world.
Americans don't want to know any of that, they just want to believe in how great they are. How free they are to buy almost anything they can afford. If a few eggs have to be cracked to maintain that culture wide level of self-delusion--so be it. So long as they are brown and live on the other side of the globe--out of sight out of mind is America's motto. The ol' price of freedom and liberty that others must pay, to us, sans the messy democracy and right to self-determination.
America is the indespensible nation. Without America Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be the modern politically free economic juggernauts they are today. Libya fuhgettaboutit. BFFs Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain-ditto.
Hell right now today, Iranians are throwing away their Ahmadinejad foam #1 fingers and draping themselves in the American flag in gratitude for the sanctions that are ruining the lives of millions in the hopes they'll "rise up" just like the Iraqis did to throw off Saddam when we sanctioned them.
All of that is unimportant by comparison to the virtual magic show of domestric prosperity the duopoly has created in America with their bipartisan centrist "concensus".
I'm with what's his name--you should write more stories about Panda births and Dancing With the Stars analysis. You know "feel good mom and apple pie Americana" type stories.
P.S. More emoticons. Glenn just needs to put some happy faced emoticons after his rebukes of the anklebiters. Messes with their minds.
GlennGreenwald
Response to ytrewq, 17 October 2012 12:48AM
ytrewq
This, however, is for you.
OMG. Glenn Greenwald has revealed the secret that politics is largely bullshit. Who fucking knew?Super-sophisticated, profoundly worldly, unbelievably savvy people like you already knew. But nobody can write for those who are omniscient and have seen it all, so this isn't really for you.
This, however, is for you.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They spent months negotiating with lawyers, advisers, staff and all other kinds of people to produce a long memo that provided the rules of the debate. They meet in secret and tell nobody what they've agreed to. At the same time, they release to the public small bits of information that purport to be "the rules for the debates" while the real rules are concealed.
The real rules are hidden. The for-the-public rules are disclosed. It's totally misleading. And yes, by definition, the process was cloaked in secrecy. As George Farah said about this leaked document:
What possible reason is there to conceal from the public the agreed-to rules that govern the presidential debates?
I'm going to take your desires for what I should write about very seriously, really take them to heart, in light of that new law that was enacted requiring you to come and read what I write every day. It would be unfair, in light of your lack of choice, for me to ignore your preferences.
In this spirit, you should email me each morning with some suggested happier topics: my favorite flowers, what it's like to swim to with a dolphin, fun cat videos, things like that. Maybe I can devote every Wednesday to offering light-hearted relationship to my readers
I really want to make sure that you're happy and entertained. It's not like this is a political column or anything, so why should we always be so dreary and write about political problems in the US, a country that is prospering so well? Let's lighten things up.
As I've said before, I'm struggling to show my more playful side and I feel like this sort of encouragement can only help.