It was the first time that I saw the incumbent and an aspirer to the most powerful position in the world battling out each other in a 'people's court' to gain confidence and hence the vote to be the next President of the United States. Being from a nation with multi-party politics this seems somewhat infeasible in India but there are many other reasons that I think hinder such an event. There is a lot that can be said about these debates, their pros and cons, modifications that can lend more credibility to their outcomes, their inheritance to other democracies, etc. and I will try to touch briefly on each of them.
I think that there are many shortcomings that such a debate faces that go unnoticed in the sequence of events. The biggest drawback I think of this format is the inability to verify the facts. I remember very vividly how Obama kept on insisting about the $7 Trillion increase in deficit that Romney's policies would lead to while Romney consistently kept on denying any such proposal from his end. Had there been a team on both the sides well equipped to verify and crunch out the details of any statement it would have been an expedient revelation of the accuracy of the debate. I'm not questioning the feasibility of such a setup but lack of such checks allows the candidates to revolve around the truth with their confidence lending credibility to their statements. The common man who doesn't have the resources or the capability to analyze the debate and connect it with the facts from the campaign is liable to fall prey to such falacies and create an incorrect opinion based on them. For eg. it seems a no brainer to vote to have your taxes cut, but, that leading to more jobs and hence, on the contrary, an overall increase in tax revenue is a hypothetical assumption and one that is prone to the dynamics of the economy. Of course Obama must have computed the impact of such a move based on which he came up with the $2 Trillion figure but, at the moment of Romney's repudiation, had there been a team that could have presented their findings and hence challenged Romney, it would have once and for all exposed the impact of his policies. These statements can lead to an incorrect assessment of the manifesto of the candidates especially by those who don't go deeper into their analysis. In another case during the debate on foreign policies when Romney brought up the controversy over the Benghazi attack and how inefficient the white house was in investigating the situation and make statements his entire accusation was responded by a confident "Get the transcripts governor." And it is this confidence that can mislead a big electorate who care about such issues to align with Obama and trust him with their vote.
We know that its all politics and the truth, even if told, will be presented in a manner that would benefit the speaker. An excellent example of this was when Romney accused Obama of visiting the middle east region and leaving out Israel that he considers as the most important American Ally in the area. This was dramatically turned around by Obama who stressed that the importance of such tours was not centered around publicity and election campaigns but more so to be on the ground and learn from the hardships that people face. He highlighted that he had indeed visited Israel earlier during the Lebanon War and had offered his condolence and help to the families affected by the war. In another situation where Romney pointed to the inability of Obama administration to contain the rise in oil prices and vowed to bring them down to 'pre-Obama' levels, Obama struck back cleverly pointing to the low prices being reflective of the failed Republican policies that brought the entire economy to a halt. It seemed Obama learnt really well from the first debate on how to turn around the reason for a shortfall in any economic indicator to his predecessor.
Both the parties have the goodwill of the Americans in their heart and, striking out misuse of power by corruption for personal gains, both the leaders would aim to uplift the standards of the Americans if elected. (The striking out of corruption is a very critical factor that separates the politics in developing countries like India where numerous scams result from exploitation of power and personal motives play a big role in candidates vying to be elected.) In that scenario it is difficult to imagine any disparities in their policies and its the inability to identify that that can lead an average Joe swing in one direction or the other simply by the confidence and the gut factor. But inspite of these shortcomings I think that these debates provide a crucial platform to witness the vision and its depth that the candidates have for the future. Especially interesting are the issues where both the candidates take strikingly opposite views and then debate to defend their stances. Two key issues to report in this aspect are the taxes and medicare. When you truly have opposing views it makes it easier to get closer to the vision of the candidate and question their thinking. In the case of taxes it makes it easy to distinguish that Romney wishes to lower tax rates while Obama doesn't show any actionable inclination in that regard. For medicare Romney proposes the insurance to be in the hands of the private players without any hindrance from the state and relies on competition as the platform to provide different products while Obama proposes a government enforced program to ensure that everybody has insurance. These two facets seem to point to deregulation and capitalism as being reflective of a Republican and to the liberal and progressive nature of a Democrat and even though both the parties have the best intentions at heart their radically different means can lead to quite different outcomes.
For the well informed and educated these debates provide a good insight into the minds of the leaders themselves among whom one would be voted. It is this insight of a concise agenda of the parties and the knowledge about the leadership that I think is missing in Indian politics. Hence the political parties are able to take advantage of the unaware masses who cannot think and analyze, beyond their short term needs, about the economy, jobs, growth and income. They are contented with the promises of factories that would provide them employment, irrigation measures for their farms, development of roads, hospitals, etc. Although that these are essential measures to promote growth and well being of citizens it would be helpful if they promote their manifestos and highlight their vision than the next project. Agreed that with such a huge electorate, a diverse set of cultures, different geographies and varied needs, add on top the multi-lingual regions, it makes it extremely difficult for a common debate to make sense for a majority of those watching. I think before talking about the debate political parties also needs to put a face to their campaign than install puppets managed by family run politics. A strong leader needs to be able to instill confidence into the people about his ability to take the country forward and be available to answer to people. Once the parties have a leader who is also a contender for the Prime post I think it is possible to have them present their views on the key problems being faced by the country which can probably be dubbed or have subtitles and be telecasted across the nation.
Without such leaders and their visions it would be hard to uproot dirty politics out of government and any discussions or debates would act as the baits to attract the people based on their immediate needs.
I think that there are many shortcomings that such a debate faces that go unnoticed in the sequence of events. The biggest drawback I think of this format is the inability to verify the facts. I remember very vividly how Obama kept on insisting about the $7 Trillion increase in deficit that Romney's policies would lead to while Romney consistently kept on denying any such proposal from his end. Had there been a team on both the sides well equipped to verify and crunch out the details of any statement it would have been an expedient revelation of the accuracy of the debate. I'm not questioning the feasibility of such a setup but lack of such checks allows the candidates to revolve around the truth with their confidence lending credibility to their statements. The common man who doesn't have the resources or the capability to analyze the debate and connect it with the facts from the campaign is liable to fall prey to such falacies and create an incorrect opinion based on them. For eg. it seems a no brainer to vote to have your taxes cut, but, that leading to more jobs and hence, on the contrary, an overall increase in tax revenue is a hypothetical assumption and one that is prone to the dynamics of the economy. Of course Obama must have computed the impact of such a move based on which he came up with the $2 Trillion figure but, at the moment of Romney's repudiation, had there been a team that could have presented their findings and hence challenged Romney, it would have once and for all exposed the impact of his policies. These statements can lead to an incorrect assessment of the manifesto of the candidates especially by those who don't go deeper into their analysis. In another case during the debate on foreign policies when Romney brought up the controversy over the Benghazi attack and how inefficient the white house was in investigating the situation and make statements his entire accusation was responded by a confident "Get the transcripts governor." And it is this confidence that can mislead a big electorate who care about such issues to align with Obama and trust him with their vote.
We know that its all politics and the truth, even if told, will be presented in a manner that would benefit the speaker. An excellent example of this was when Romney accused Obama of visiting the middle east region and leaving out Israel that he considers as the most important American Ally in the area. This was dramatically turned around by Obama who stressed that the importance of such tours was not centered around publicity and election campaigns but more so to be on the ground and learn from the hardships that people face. He highlighted that he had indeed visited Israel earlier during the Lebanon War and had offered his condolence and help to the families affected by the war. In another situation where Romney pointed to the inability of Obama administration to contain the rise in oil prices and vowed to bring them down to 'pre-Obama' levels, Obama struck back cleverly pointing to the low prices being reflective of the failed Republican policies that brought the entire economy to a halt. It seemed Obama learnt really well from the first debate on how to turn around the reason for a shortfall in any economic indicator to his predecessor.
Both the parties have the goodwill of the Americans in their heart and, striking out misuse of power by corruption for personal gains, both the leaders would aim to uplift the standards of the Americans if elected. (The striking out of corruption is a very critical factor that separates the politics in developing countries like India where numerous scams result from exploitation of power and personal motives play a big role in candidates vying to be elected.) In that scenario it is difficult to imagine any disparities in their policies and its the inability to identify that that can lead an average Joe swing in one direction or the other simply by the confidence and the gut factor. But inspite of these shortcomings I think that these debates provide a crucial platform to witness the vision and its depth that the candidates have for the future. Especially interesting are the issues where both the candidates take strikingly opposite views and then debate to defend their stances. Two key issues to report in this aspect are the taxes and medicare. When you truly have opposing views it makes it easier to get closer to the vision of the candidate and question their thinking. In the case of taxes it makes it easy to distinguish that Romney wishes to lower tax rates while Obama doesn't show any actionable inclination in that regard. For medicare Romney proposes the insurance to be in the hands of the private players without any hindrance from the state and relies on competition as the platform to provide different products while Obama proposes a government enforced program to ensure that everybody has insurance. These two facets seem to point to deregulation and capitalism as being reflective of a Republican and to the liberal and progressive nature of a Democrat and even though both the parties have the best intentions at heart their radically different means can lead to quite different outcomes.
For the well informed and educated these debates provide a good insight into the minds of the leaders themselves among whom one would be voted. It is this insight of a concise agenda of the parties and the knowledge about the leadership that I think is missing in Indian politics. Hence the political parties are able to take advantage of the unaware masses who cannot think and analyze, beyond their short term needs, about the economy, jobs, growth and income. They are contented with the promises of factories that would provide them employment, irrigation measures for their farms, development of roads, hospitals, etc. Although that these are essential measures to promote growth and well being of citizens it would be helpful if they promote their manifestos and highlight their vision than the next project. Agreed that with such a huge electorate, a diverse set of cultures, different geographies and varied needs, add on top the multi-lingual regions, it makes it extremely difficult for a common debate to make sense for a majority of those watching. I think before talking about the debate political parties also needs to put a face to their campaign than install puppets managed by family run politics. A strong leader needs to be able to instill confidence into the people about his ability to take the country forward and be available to answer to people. Once the parties have a leader who is also a contender for the Prime post I think it is possible to have them present their views on the key problems being faced by the country which can probably be dubbed or have subtitles and be telecasted across the nation.
Without such leaders and their visions it would be hard to uproot dirty politics out of government and any discussions or debates would act as the baits to attract the people based on their immediate needs.
