The Inannity with Hannity
DeSantis Newsom Debate Highlights the Broken Two-Party System
Blurring the Colorline: Original Open Edition Poster
“Jane, You Ignorant Slut” did you expect anything different?
Amid great fanfare last week, “The Great Red State Vs Blue State Debate” was broadcast by Fox News. I use the word “moderated” to describe the role of Sean Hannity advisedly because one can hardly make the case that his was the role of a non-partisan moderator, but on the other hand, Gavin Newsom could not have entered into the contest without complete awareness that Hannity would try to stack the deck in his own inimitable way.
The event was a poignant, dystopian, representation of the vortex into which we have been swept at the hands of two dysfunctional political parties and a fawning mainstream media, inclined to align with whatever party feeds their voracious appetite for advertising dollars; A case of the Cynical, leading the Blind and the Mad into a political Twilight Zone.
The event was a poignant, dystopian, representation of the vortex into which we have been swept at the hands of two dysfunctional political parties and a fawning mainstream media, inclined to align with whatever party feeds their voracious appetite for advertising dollars; A case of the Cynical, leading the Blind and the Mad into a political Twilight Zone.
Ask yourself this: If the question “How would you grade the current President’s performance?” were asked first, predictably, with Newsom giving him an “A” and DeSantis an “F,” would anyone have watched the remainder of the debate? Or would all but the most hardened partisans have just changed the “channel”, or moved along to other more productive and enlightening alternatives?
I lasted only about ten minutes before moving on in disgust. I only returned to watch the entire debacle after I determined to write this OpEd.
Listening to the debate made me yearn for the day when Jon Stewart burned down Crossfire. Stewart had purposefully accepted an invitation to appear on CNN’s Flagship political show and then proceeded to give a well-deserved dressing down to predictably sycophantic Democratic operative Paul Begala and Republican toady Tucker Carlson. So powerful was Stewart’s rebuke of Crossfire and the public’s enthusiasm for it that Crossfire was canceled soon thereafter.
Unfortunately, though agreement with Stewart was strong, there was little introspection following the moment. Little thought was given to ways that an advanced society could discuss contentious issues without descending into simplistic, ideological, tribal, point-scoring, and sloganeering.
Yet, since the times of Socrates and Plato, Hegel and Kant, among others, there has been a well-defined alternative to the vapid and simplistic depths to which we have sunken since then, but we have failed to embrace it. It is known as The Socratic Dialectic or simply a dialectic discussion where a thesis is presented, challenged by an antithesis, in search of a synthesis.
It may be that the term “debate,” viewed through a modern lens, and particularly through the lens of party politics, doesn’t permit a search for areas of agreement, common ground, or even civil stalemate or consensual disagreement.
This is particularly true when it comes to an event that brings 8 or 10 candidates to a stage looking for ways to score points that separate them from the crowd. It may very well be that we need to either change out the early stage processes or live with the un-nuanced nonsense that characterizes today’s debates until we have narrowed down the field to a limited number of individuals, overseen by a talented and firm moderator.
Most of us would agree that a process that permits us to listen to our candidates as they conduct a rational discussion, seeking out areas of agreement and disagreement, would be far more productive and enlightening, even if those areas of disagreement are profound. A process like this is also far more useful as we navigate the hills, valleys, and pitfalls of citizenship.
I readily acknowledge as an avowed “radical centrist,” I am eager to explore the possibility that I might be wrong in some of my thinking. But I also believe that much of my thinking is derived from previous careful contemplation.
I don’t suggest that we seek consensus by agreeing to a mushy middle ground, purely to achieve agreement. If the process requires more and deeper dialog, so be it; democracy is a messy business, but it need not be cruel, bullying, or closed-minded. In fact, it should not be.
Furthermore, there should be a serious price to pay - a reputational cost - for those behaviors, and those who employ them, because they are ill-liberal and self-aggrandizing. Intended to enflame, not to enlighten.
Recently, Politico columnist Michael Schaffer has made the case that Jon Stewart was wrong and we need to return to the Crossfire days ( Sorry, Jon Stewart — America Needs Crossfire Again, 04/07/2023).
I believe he is wrong, very wrong.
What we need is leadership from thought leaders and respected people of every gender, color, and income level - from every point of the circle that we know as the political spectrum. Leadership that speaks to the honor and humility of continuing to plumb the depths of our human understanding, and civility in the search for the best attainable version of truth or at least a landing zone where we can respect our differences without declaring either unequivocal surrender, unearned victory, or outright war.
Links & Notes:
Saturday Night Live Jane Curtin, Dan Ackroyd Point Counterpoint.
If you haven’t watched that magic moment when Jon Stewart eviscerated the two parties, here’s a link to it on YouTube.
This series of discussions is one of the best examples of the dialectic approach:
Harris & Peterson “Debates” moderated by Bret Weinstein and Douglas Murray
The God Debates
Night 1
Lone Moose on a Snowy Oxbow: Signed Originals Unsigned Open Edition
Abandoned Cornfield: Signed Originals. Unsigned Open Edition Prints
Dresses in a Senegal Breeze: Signed Originals Unsigned Open Edition
Fishing Boats Cape Coast Ghana
About Wayne D. King: Author, podcaster, artist, activist, social entrepreneur, and recovering politician. A three-term State Senator, 1994 Democratic nominee for Governor. His art (WayneDKing.com) is exhibited nationally in galleries, and he has published five books of his images, most recently, "New Hampshire - a Love Story.” His novel "Sacred Trust" a vicarious, high voltage adventure to stop a private powerline, as well as the photographic books are available at most local bookstores or on Amazon. He lives on the “Narrows” in Bath, NH at the confluence of the Connecticut and Ammonoosuc Rivers and proudly flies the American, Iroquois and Abenaki Flags. His publishing website is: Anamaki.com.
Podcasts are produced at Anamaki Studios in Bath, NH.
This land lies in N’dakinna, the traditional ancestral homeland of the Abenaki, Sokoki, Koasek, Pemigewasset, Pennacook and Wabanaki Peoples past and present. We acknowledge and honor with gratitude those who have stewarded N’dakinna throughout the generations.