Politics: Regarding American Presidential Debates

As evidenced in last evening's presidential "debate," there's very little true debate on pertinent issues. Instead, what we are witnessing is an orchestrated psychologial operation designed to divide the public into camps, as opposed to unifying the American people behind valid political positions that will serve to further the wellness of the nation.

In no way can any important political position be articulated within the span of a minute's time. Furthermore, debate requires that opponents be allowed to properly question each other's positions in a way that is meaningful. The scripted, timed manner of such a disdoes not allow for prop rebuttal to matters of disagreement, reducing the entire event to a glorified job interview.

As a society, we've been programmed into accepting soundbite politics as opposed to well-structured, intelligent political arguments. In this way, very little critical thought is applied to any specific issue of importance.

While watching facilitator Tom Brokaw "moderate" the Presidential debate of last evening, it remains richly apparent the media has no desire to allow candidates vessels for articulating solid political positions. The sloganism of Orwell's texts has never been more apparent. Allowing such debates to be moderated by media figures is a laughable premise in itself. What credible qualifications does one who merely reports news events have in determining the framework of the debate? Manufactured talking points and false issues have no place in a debate. Even more troubling is the manner of dialectical context in which the debate is presented.

Those viewing the performance put on by Brokaw and the two candidates have little understanding of the nature of this superficial fabrication that's placed before them as valid political discourse.

Both of the selected candidates offered very little fact, a great deal of opinion and further obscufation of the true issues at hand.

We've wrongly learned to accept that which is put before us by so-called "credible" sources as holy fact.

If the American public wished to truly put Presidential candidates on the spot, to learn their true inclinations, we would be better served as a Nation to televise the candidates being asked hard questions by their actual constituents, in the absence of false media facilitation, and without hand-selection of attendees.

American Presidential debates are not debates on positions at all. They are merely opportunities for parroting divisive party platforms. Such illusions have too long been held by the American public to be credible methods of selecting a President.