What will be the lessons, the takeaways from the 2020 presidential campaign?
Illustration: Candor Visuals
This section solicits responses to the “Question of the Month” proffered by the editors of Candor.
The question for October: What will be the lessons, the takeaways from the 2020 presidential campaign?
You are free to read and respond. Responses received may be included in Candor. Send all responses to: editor@candor.news
A response by Michael Witherspoon:
When I ponder the intensity of civil anger and violence in America from 1861-65, I have to think that the anger and violence we are experiencing today is at a considerably lower level than then. And may it remain that way! Yet, don’t we seem, communally and societally, a little extra on-edge?
America’s 2020 presidential campaign evidences, soberingly, an increasing polarization of views regarding the best future of the country. Does anyone else miss the days when every person had not become a journalist via something we all carry on our persons all day, every day? Or miss the days when Big Stories, meta-narratives, kept us gathered -- religiously: “Faith in God is foundational to America’s goodness” -- and secularly: “America is the great melting pot”?
The Greek word ethnos translates into English as “nation.” Nations in the Ancient World were distinct people groups sharing lots of genetics, language, knowledge, customs, symbols, laws, and so on. As humankind developed sociologically over time -- families grouped into clans and clans into tribes and tribes into nations and nations into countries and countries into a global . . . (oh, the point of stasis --- and more than a little pushback). Many nations could be not far from one another, yet warringly distinct. Nations do not have the same hegemonies, for a myriad of reasons and causes — superior technology or wisdom, force or succor?
When nations – rooted in ethnicities -- share the same boundaries – and declare themselves to be a country – that country will need uniting stories and a treasury of values that they agree upon. We are having a very difficult time talking truthfully to one another about serious things. Is it wrong to be getting tired of lawless journalism -- and the politics they write about? Seriously, what is going to be the future of civil conversation in a highly diversifying, individualizing, atomizing and solipsistic culture? Will there be enough people who take the time to search out the truth together – on any matter?
Also read and respond to this timely excerpt from Brookings Institute Senior Fellow Robert Litan’s October 6-released book: Resolved: Debate Can Revolutionize Education and Help save Democracy
What America Needs is Real Debating
Robert Litan
If you’ve been watching the Presidential debates – this year or in years past – you should know one thing: these are not real debates, but crafted sound bites that too often whistle past each other and the moderator, aimed at ratifying what each candidate’s voter base already believes.
In real debates, the participants offer reasoned positions, backed by evidence, in civil discussion, without name-calling, in speeches longer than 60 or 90 seconds. Competitive debaters in high school and college not only learn how to do this well, but to argue both sides of a topic in different “rounds” of tournaments, which forces debaters to appreciate that most issues are far more complicated than they appear on social media or cable TV.
While it is unrealistic to expect all students to become competitive debaters, incorporating the basic paradigm of debating – supporting claims with real facts and reasoning, learning how to rebut critiques, orally and not just in writing – would transform the education of youth in America, improve the skills and flexibility of workers and thus their incomes, and create a more civil, informed citizenry.
In fact, two education pioneers and former debaters – Les Lynn and Mike Wasserman -- have been instructing teachers in debate-centered instructional techniques in middle and high schools in Chicago and Boston, respectively, for over five years. With impressive results: improved test scores and perhaps most importantly, classes that are fun, for the students and teachers alike, all of which I have witnessed first-hand.
The idea that learning can be enjoyable and relevant to students’ daily lives is important not only for all students, but especially those in low income, heavily minority communities where too many students start out school well behind their suburban school peers and motivating them to be interested in school can be a challenge. Several statistical studies have shown that competitive debate in urban schools with high numbers of minority students improves the debaters’ educational performance, even controlling for the students who “self-select” into debate. One plausible reason why is that debate strongly motivates students to want to learn, which is true whether debating is done outside or inside in the classroom.
Educational improvements brought about through debate-centered instruction should have lasting effects, improving students’ career earnings not only because they know more when they leave school, but because learning through debate should make them willing to learn as they age. Debate also enables students to express themselves orally, clearly and logically – skills that employers widely report that too many high school and college graduates lack.
Debate skills should also gradually improve our politics, where too few adults have the ability, experience or willingness to appreciate arguments and evidence counter to their own beliefs, precisely what debate instills in students. Indeed, if I could wave a magic wand, all citizens would have some debate some experience now. Once trained in being able to articulate opposing arguments, with facts and reason, more people will be more tolerant of others, which would reduce political polarization and the mean-spiritedness of our politics. Elected officials would have greater incentives to cross the aisle and compromise, like spouses do in good marriages.
Debate centered learning can even thrive through remote learning. Anyone who has children knows that they can be far less intimidated talking to others through their laptops or tablet computers than in person in a classroom setting. As for students who may struggle expressing themselves orally in person – public speaking ranks at or near the top of many peoples’ fears – debate techniques can be introduced gradually, as the teachers counseled by Lynn and Wasserman can testify.
Teachers can be instructed in debate centered learning techniques in a week of training, ideally with one mentor inside each school – such as the debate coach – to answer questions or give suggestions throughout the school year. All this can be financed by redirecting part of the money now being spent on professional development toward debate centered instruction, though foundation funding to support the training of initial cohorts of teachers would help. Thereafter, teachers experienced in delivering debate centered instruction can lead training sessions for teachers in their schools and other schools.
Local school boards needn’t wait for foundations to launch such efforts, however. They can go beyond the competitive debate initiative that Broward County in Florida has been using for all its K-12 schools successfully for several years and make debate centered instruction a central part of education itself. There is no time to waste to improve our schools, our workforce, and our politics – and real debating offers one powerful tool for doing all three.
THIS DANGEROUS VICE: The Recurring American Two-Party System
Michael Isbell
There are two methods of curing the mischief of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
- James Madison
Shortly after the founding of the republic, a controversy made root in America: the two-party system. What began so long ago with Jeffersonians and Federalists - names now foreign to many, which were once such a monumental part of American political discourse - has shimmied as much as stumbled into what are now the two prevailing party options, the Republicans and the Democrats.
By dominating the news media nearly in its entirety (albeit with some bias throughout), and with millions of dollars of funding to run on during campaigns, the two parties have stricken down great opportunities for the American people to further pursue their options for the upcoming presidential election.
In total, there are six third-party options which are shown in the ballots of at least fifteen states this year. With the exception of perhaps Jo Jorgensen and Howie Hawkins, all of whom garner less attention from the public than Kanye West, presidential nominee for the “Birthday” Party, currently accessible on ballots in at least twelve states.
What is it that prevents a heavier outflow of interest for third party members? The answer might be simple. It probably is not.
A French politician named Maurice Duverger is responsible for what is known as Duverger's Law, in short the theory that in mass majority single-ballot elections, it is unlikely to expect anything other than a two-party dominance to emerge. A person can make more difference in partaking in a choice between two options than that of three, or four, or more options. The more options available, the more thinned out support from the masses is likely to be.
A nation-wide sense of peer pressure is perhaps just as much to blame. The “If you’re not voting for me, you’re voting for him” ideology is a rampant fallacy among the public. Friends, co-workers, family members, celebrities, and others whom we turn to and respect, all have opinions. Many will share them; undoubtedly some will push them on others. This, without mentioning the stress of having a thought singular to the individual being silenced for fear of aggression from someone else, serves to toxify the political tides.
In deepening opposition, radicalism may become a greater likelihood. The options become less gray, with voters taking a more black and white position on social matters. "One or the other" becomes the norm in any society incapable of conscious, credible, rationalized discussion absent of spite for the other man.
The inability for third party candidates to earn acknowledgement from the public for election may further entice tumultuous partisanship on both sides. As media coverage continues to favor one over the other with more fervor, so the masses are swayed more dramatically, landing themselves farther left or right along the political scale as societal issues converge into larger, more troublesome issues.
The true American dream is, beyond anything else, a unity of the peoples. In times of sudden crisis, this dream is often enacted into reality as survival instincts outweigh political ones. Over a historical timeline, though, with divisions deepening down into the American thought processes, affecting the decisions made and priorities handled, a snowball may begin to form, rolling along, collecting social debris and strewing it elsewhere. Without effective, transparent, united coordination, America is a snowball, heading towards a rough brick wall.
Within the United States, it is up to the people. To better grasp what options are available that are neither mainstream nor radical, it is important to conduct one's own research, to seek out and to find as much information - hopefully from trusted sources - as possible. A controversy made root in America; it is up to the great We to determine the longevity of its influence.