Last week, I wrote a paper for my American Political Thought and Practice class about the effect that televised presidential debates have on elections. I finished and sent in the paper 24 hours ago, and have thought about the situation a little bit more. Writing the paper caused me to rethink my thesis.
I argued that there are positives and negatives to televised debates, but I said that the potential for positive influence outweighed the negative, so it was a good thing that these debates were televised. It is good because it informs the voters and allows the candidates message to go out to a greater audience than just where the candidate has physically travelled. It also forces candidates to be effective communicators. However, it has three negative influences. One, it causes the media to turn elections into a scorecard of "who's winning." Two, it makes the candidates "appeal to the masses," since voters can be swayed by emotion, it allows them to feel informed without actually causing them to make wise decisions. And three, it reduces the chances of getting great, "Level Five" leaders--leaders who do a great job leading companies are often not very charismatic; rather, they do a good job of assigning praise to others and making sure that everything gets done with excellence, without being the center of attention.
I argued: in theory, the best man will win out because the voters have been informed of what each candidate believes, and televised debates help inform voters. I agree with this still... but the problem is that I qualified my statement by saying: In theory.
Theoretically, I could fly unaided by any machine. Theoretically, I could walk on the moon. Theoretically, black could be white and white could be black... in an alternate universe. But theses are not to be built on theories. Especially when the evidence shows that when human nature is taken into account, it seems that the opposite case is true.
In my thesis, I think I wanted to argue that televised debates should help elections. They ought to. That would be ideal. However, my way of seeing what the world should be like obscures what the world is like. I look forward with hope and thus see the present inaccurately. It is thus true that my gift has a negative aspect to it. I would say I am gifted with the ability to look into a potential future and see what could become of a situation. But then, I sometimes forget that the potential future is only a potential.
Such was the case with my paper. At the time I wrote my negative arguments, I actually found them pretty convincing. Then I didn't do a good job answering those objections, and ultimately (in my paper), I cut out the objections section altogether. In fact, leaving my paper as I had submitted it, I think the reader might actually be persuaded against my conclusion than for it. The weird thing is, I think I might agree with them.
I find my second two negative arguments to carry the most weight. For the one about the leaders, I think that a workhorse kind of President may be better for the nation. Then again, if a President's job is to "preside," maybe he doesn't need to be a level five leader. This causes me to think: what should the executive position of our government look like? What ought he do? What kind of person would fit that position best? I'll leave those questions for us to consider.
My other negative argument is the most convincing to me. I don't have a very idealistic view of our culture. It's taken itself to Hell in a hand-basket. Think about appeals to the masses. What is being appealed to? What appeals to people? Sex, money, and power. Then everything else under the sun. I know there are some people who are concerned about the government and what it becomes, and honestly consider each candidate to discover who is the best man (or woman) for the job. But that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I think about a million men who sit by their T.V.s watching the Superbowl with a beer in on hand and the remote in the other. What happens when those million men go to the polls? If all you live for is sports, then maybe you'll just vote for the guy who uses sports analogies... because you can relate to him better than the other guy. Maybe you don't vote at all, and leave that to people who have something to gain from a particular candidate, and that selfish ambition is why they are voting for that candidate.
The Framers of the Constitution created a document that worked with human nature. Yet putting political debates on television seems to go against the very idea of television. When watching television, aren't we supposed to be entertained? So what subconscious message is being sent? Politics should entertain us? We should vote for the candidate we like just like we would on American Idol?
I think I disagree that televising election debates is a good thing. But I think my problem doesn't lie with the debate, or the election, or the politics, but the television. And I would add, the deeper issue of the culture (who is voting). I've explained what I now think. Do you agree? The pieces just don't add up. My thesis is wrong.
Briefly, why is human nature so depraved? I think to the Bible passage that says: "The heart is deceitful above all else. Who can know it?" Why do we want things like sex, money, and power... but in such a messed up way?
It is because of the Fall. Sin messed up everything. When Adam chose to disobey God and eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, his choice was so destructive and insidious that all of his children have lived with that sinful nature. Sin is twisting what is good into a form so that it is no longer good. It is placing self above God and others. It is living at less than what we ought to live at, while forgetting how we ought to live.
The good news is that Jesus came to make us right with God. What He did is changing the world for the better even now, and that will be completed when Jesus comes again. Creation will be regained. And the political problem will be solved. That's looking forward. And oh, what a good and real future that is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment