Presidential Debates Are Worthless Political Theater and James Van Der Beek Doesn't Understand Facts or Logic
Elon Musk Calls Kettle Black, Black Men Get Worse Medical Care, Neville & Ronstadt Sing
Why Presidential Debates Are Worthless Political Theater
Actor James Van Der Beek (Dawson’s Creek) selfied his two-minute rant about how debates among Democratic presidential contenders will save democracy. He was triggered by the Democratic National Committee’s announcement that it “has no plans to sponsor primary debates.”
There’s a lot to unpack here, starting with wondering why Van Der Beek’s opinion is worthy of being covered by the news media. Sure, it’s “celebrity news,” reserved for celebrities saying anything about anything, but is it news news? The answer is revealed by the fact that most news outlets hyping his video are strongly right-wing, like Fox. The same thing happened last month when Joe Rogan made a similar observation. Fox was there to shout it to the world.
It’s what they didn’t shout that makes all the difference. Facts. The last four presidents up for reelection did not participate in debates. In 2020, when Trump was incumbent, the Republican Party held no primary debates before the presidential election. The Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel announced: “We continue to support the President and the vice president and the current administration.” There were no debates when George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton were president. Trump said he would not participate in the GOP-planned debate: “When you’re leading by seemingly insurmountable numbers, and you have hostile Networks with angry, TRUMP & MAGA hating anchors asking the ‘questions,’ why subject yourself to being libeled and abused?” Why was that information missing from your video, VDB?
Political ranters often rely on their audiences’ ignorance of history and laziness at looking up facts.
Van Der Beek put himself out there but did no favors to himself, other celebrities, or his cause by being so ill-informed and illogical. (Where’s his outraged video about Republicans not having debates when Trump was president?) Yes, he’s hoisted on the padded shoulders of those who prey on the disinformed to make money (like Fox News) because he’s now an unpaid spokesperson for their brand. They are giddy because he’s going to make them money. But Van Der Beek himself is tarnished for his public display of bad critical thinking—and for spreading it to millions of others.
Now, to the core question of the value of presidential debates (the title of this piece is a strong hint at where I stand). Presidential debates, or any political debates, are worthless in determining the mental or physical fitness of a candidate, nor are they any indication of their ability to be a successful president. They are merely a form of gladiatorial entertainment in which we hope to see someone verbally pummeled by their opponent. It has all the elements of a good suspense movie: conflict, stakes, and suspense. And it has just as much meaning in the real world.
The qualities necessary to perform well during a debate are not the same ones necessary to be a good president. Integrity can’t be performed (though it can be faked with a catch in the throat or an outraged scowl). Neither can the ability to negotiate with foreign powers or the opposing party. All we get is their acting ability; only instead of an Oscar we hand them the presidency of the most powerful nation in the world. It’s like having a cafeteria food fight at IBM, and the winner gets to run the company.
Because they know most viewers won’t follow up a debate by reading the fact-checks that reveal their lies and misinformation, the candidates are free to say whatever they want: misuse statistics, make up studies, invent touching personal anecdotes. Squeeze out a fake tear for the gullible. It’s theater for those too lazy to do their duty as voters: research the candidates’ voting history, their proclaimed positions on all the issues, what actions they’ve taken on behalf of the people, and so forth. They’d rather have all that reduced to a tiny sugary pill, easy to swallow. That pill is the debates.
Debates could be a helpful tool—but only with serious changes. First, everything a candidate says during a debate should be fact-checked in real-time. Discrepancies and misinformation should be shown on a screen behind the candidates, and they should then be forced to address those differences. Second, critical-thinking professors should be brought in to address any logical fallacies the candidates use to make their points. Name-calling, false dilemmas, hasty generalizations—all of them. Put ‘em up on the screen. But we know that will never happen because no candidate will agree to those conditions.
That is exactly why debates are worthless political theater. Full of sound and fury—signifying nothing.
This Week in Dumb Stuff Famous People Said
Elon Musk Takes a Stand on Target Boycott (TheStreet)
SUMMARY: …The problem for the conservatives: Target's line of products honoring the LGBTQ+ community. It's not new: Every year, in June, Target decorates its stores with the colors of Pride Month and offers specific products: a cup with the inscription "gender fluid," a nongendered swimsuit, and even children's t-shirts bearing the words "Bien Proud" ("Very proud").
But in recent days, the initiative has provoked an outpouring of hatred from the most conservative fringe of the country.
In some Target stores, shelves were overturned, and salespeople attacked.
"The goal is to make pride toxic for brands," Matt Walsh, a right-wing political commentator, tweeted on May 24. "If they decide to shove this garbage in our face, they should know that they’ll pay a price. It won’t be worth whatever they think they’ll gain. First Bud Light and now Target. Our campaign is making progress. Let’s keep it going."
…Elon Musk, the serial entrepreneur who has become a hero of the conservatives in recent months, did not hesitate to react. He even took the opportunity to say that Target's actions were going to have serious and legal consequences for the group and its leaders.
"JP Morgan just downgraded Target's stock, after its longest losing streak in 23 years citing 'too many concerns rising’," Kirk wrote on June 1. "Happy Pride Month Target!!"
To which Musk responded 24 hours later with a warning to Target.
"Won’t be long before there are class-action lawsuits by shareholders against the company and board of directors for destruction of shareholder value," the billionaire said.
MY TAKE: The summary is a little longer than usual because I had to get all the crazy stuff in there to better comment on it.
Matt Walsh said, “The goal is to make pride toxic for brands.” This is pretty much the definition of hate speech. It attempts to isolate a group for being born a certain way over which they had no control. No, researchers have not found a “gay gene,” but they have “identified five genes which are clearly connected with same-sex sexual attraction.” The study’s coauthor J. Fah Sathirapongsasuti, a computational biologist, said, “Just because something is not completely genetic or something has an environmental, or what we call nongenetic, component doesn’t mean it’s a choice” (“The 'Gay Gene' Is A Myth But Being Gay Is 'Natural,' Say Scientists”). Walsh’s statement echoes the long history of various societies demeaning groups by telling them they have nothing to be proud of, that they are deviants. This is the core tactic of all “proud” antisemites, racists, and misogynists.
Target has been offering Gay Pride Month for more than a decade, yet suddenly conservatives are outraged and violent. Why weren’t these guardians of morality boycotting before? One of the main reasons is that slamming LGBTQ+ people is big money now. GOP political candidates are raising millions—not on comprehensive economic, infrastructure, international, or social policies—but on hate campaigns against the marginalized. In a recent CBS poll, 85% of likely Republican voters said they want a presidential nominee who “challenges woke ideas.” This was their main issue out of any option polled. Not the economy. Not mass murders. Not climate change.
This is the same formula that conservative media grifters like Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, Tim Pool, Andrew Tate, and Fox News use because conservatives as a whole are generally easier to part from their money (“‘Trump Bucks’ websites taken down after buyers fall for fake currency,” “Steve Bannon faces fraud charges in New York over the We Build the Wall charity”). Nothing opens a wallet faster than serving up hate and fear.Both Walsh and Musk make the classic fallacy of a false cause and effect. They both suggest that Target’s stock being downgraded by JP Morgan is the result of offering products in support of Gay Pride Month. While that may be a small factor when you read the actual reports (“Target’s stock, on its longest losing streak in 23 years, downgraded at JPMorgan”), the issue has more to do with nine quarters of decline, the belief that ending student loan debt freeze will cut spending among millennials, who are a large share of Target’s customer base, and online shopping. Although JP Morgan downgraded Target from overweight to neutral, “of 35 analysts surveyed by FactSet, 20 have an overweight or buy rating and 15 have a hold rating for Target.”
Finally, Musk said, “Won’t be long before there are class-action lawsuits by shareholders against the company and board of directors for destruction of shareholder value.” He implies, with some glee, it’s related to the Gay Pride products, though, as we have seen, that had little if anything to do with the downgrading. So, he either doesn’t understand business, or he’s lying. Which is most likely?
We should also note this in related news: “Twitter Now Worth Just 33% of What Musk Paid: Fidelity”: “Twitter, which Musk bought for $44 billion in October. Twitter is now worth just $15 billion, or around 33 percent of Musk’s purchase price, according to Bloomberg.” Also, in related news: “Tesla investors are worried Elon Musk enjoys operating ‘above the law’”: “A group of Tesla investors asked CEO Elon Musk for more commitment to the electric vehicle (EV) company in an open letter published last week, specifically requesting that he spend less time posting ‘derogatory tweets.’ The letter also urged Musk to address accusations of a toxic work environment at Tesla and concerns about future profitability.” At least Target was doing good with its actions. Musk was merely blustering.