first, i must say: the whole liberal/conservative argument when comparing history and contemporary events is worthless. the meaning behind those labels shifts measurably on a year-to-year basis, only the simple would find applying the 1860's criteria to present politics a relevant exercise.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert Anton Wilson
It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.
|
but i digress...
i mean this with no disrespect to you willravel: but you would, in all likelihood, be completely dismantled by any professional politician in open debate. it's obvious i haven't experienced what oratorical wonders you possess, its just that odds are that you'd get smashed.
and for this reason: the current media/electoral climate dictates that presidential candidates employ such a dull and amorphous tone of debate. they know that any misstep will be replayed a thousand times, any moment of passion will be ridiculed, any attempts to form complex arguments will be taken out of context. it's not that they are not capable of such stirring debate, it's that they have not incentive to do so. why risk it when playing a "nickle defense" is enough to please your base? why extend yourself when you know you'll be taken out of context by dan rather, or bill o'reilly, or jon stewart?
i'm sure that if they were competing against a high school debate team they'd do just fine. however, the public will crucify anyone who doesn't play it safe... so that's what they do to get our votes.