LanDroid wrote:I saw the rules to the Lincoln/Douglas debates recently. Imagine if we tried something like that for the final two candidates in this Presidential race.
I think you're probably right that it wouldn't work in the current atmosphere, but I have reservations about your rationale for why. I can't help but think that our attention spans are so short with politicians in part because we have the perception that so little of what they say is trustworthy. Maybe we can only stomach the politicians in 90 second intervals because that's as long as it takes us to assess whether or not what they're saying is worth listening to.
At any rate, I'm skeptical of the received wisdom that says the public is attention span deficient, and
therefore the campaign system is dangerously limited. Hardly anyone seems to have given much thought to the possibility that it's the other way around. In general, I would say that lack of attention span is indicative of a cultural adaptation to an environment where in depth attention rewards us less and less.
But on the whole, the question of what it would take to make the U.S. election process more conformable to the ideal it's supposed to represent is a compelling one to me, and I wouldn't mind seeing it turned into its own thread, if anyone else is interested.
Which brings up an interesting point - if this is a Christian nation and if American law is based on Judeo-Christian principles, why has the constitution needed to be revised at all? Hmmm.......
Probably because it's also based on Enlightenment political theory. I don't know how many evangelical critics would be willing to really talk about, or even admit, the fact of admixture, but historical inquiry would tend to make that clear enough.
