This is a vintage column from my once-weekly efforts for the Bolivar Herald-Free Press, first published on October 14, 1984, after the Bush-Ferraro V.P. debate. Thanks to the Missouri Historical Society, which keeps old newspapers in its archives, these dated but sometimes historically interesting jottings will be available in book/ebook form soon.
Of all collegiate contact sports, the one most likely to lead to law school is Argumentation & Debate. Few call it "argumentation" because most strive for the more refined art of "debating." What the political candidates are doing this year, however, is easy to recognize. It is as my mother used to say about a place in town called the So-and-So Bar & Grill.
"More barring than grilling, " she would declare, crossing her arms grimly. Following Mama's system of analysis, this election year we have more arguing than debating.
In order to have a debate, both parties have to agree to stick to the topic. It also helps if debate participants have some kind of organizational pattern for the crib notes they wish to present as gospel.
Our esteemed debate coach, Bob Derryberry, called it the flow of the argument. You had to be able to follow it by keeping a "flow chart." Judges often agreed with rebuttals where you could hold up your legal pad and say, "My opponent had no substantive points to make. Therefore, my flow chart is empty."
I dare you to try to keep a flow chart on the recent arguments being passed off as debates on national TV. Not by paying rapt attention to the broadcast, nor by a close reading of the transcripts, is it possible to follow the candidates or the reporters who are in charge of whatever thinking might go on during the verbal jousting match.
That the American people seem willing to let their intelligence be trampled in this fashion is not the point. No contest between politicians has ever been expected to be intelligent, or even digestible. You might as well turn two country preachers loose on the subject of who killed Jesus.
So far, the presidential candidates have sounded more like evangelists than a nasal Norwegian and a badly cast Hollywood actor. They can hardly be blamed, when they are forced to respond to questions about born-again Christianity and abortion as if these are valid government issues.
The vice presidential candidates at least looked as if they had had a good night's sleep, although President Reagan's complaint that the Democrats use an unfair degree of stage make-up must be taken seriously. Can it be true that the gipper never got so much as a touch-up during all his years in the saddle?
Lies both cosmetic and statistical tend to glare under the debate spotlight. Laugh them off, voters. If we can't laugh at these bozos, the Moral Majority may well take over the rest of the government. Whatever you do, avoid taking seriously most of what they say, especially when they sound as strident as George Bush sounded in his Thursday night hysterics.
True, he felt that he had to make up for Reagan's Sunday night stupor, but 90 minutes at the same pitch is too much for even die-hard Republicans. Dr. D. would say, "That's why we take turns speaking. Bless our hearts, we musn't wear out our welcome."
GOP authorities now protest that the President was in the odd position of knowing too much to be coherent. From the sounds of it, the Vice President knew too little.
Anyone who has ever debated in a semi-final round, as the candidates are doing in front of millions this year, can empathize with them, to a degree. Sometimes you know you have the better evidence, but it won't roll off your tongue. You can't find where you put it, in your notes, or in the dark recesses of your mind.
Geraldine Ferraro knew what she had to do. She did not misplace one piece of evidence. After all, a woman must be twice as good, when competing with men, to even stay in the contest.
For many Americans, Vice President Bush shamed himself when he refused to give the Congresswoman the dignity of her title. Every time he began with, "Ms. Ferraro, let me help you understand, " women everywhere gritted our teeth, wanting her to have a come-back, but knowing that she risked being called "bitchy" if she said too much.
Congresswoman Ferraro pulled it off, with just the right touch. She finally called him on his condescending tone, getting wild applause after saying, mildly and calmly, "I almost resent, Vice President Bush, your patronizing attitude."
Only minutes after the debate ended, the all-male panel declared Bush the winner. He swaggered around, bragging that he "kicked a little ass." Historically speaking, those of us who will never forget that debate know that for us, it had a very different outcome.
Of all collegiate contact sports, the one most likely to lead to law school is Argumentation & Debate. Few call it "argumentation" because most strive for the more refined art of "debating." What the political candidates are doing this year, however, is easy to recognize. It is as my mother used to say about a place in town called the So-and-So Bar & Grill.
"More barring than grilling, " she would declare, crossing her arms grimly. Following Mama's system of analysis, this election year we have more arguing than debating.
In order to have a debate, both parties have to agree to stick to the topic. It also helps if debate participants have some kind of organizational pattern for the crib notes they wish to present as gospel.
Our esteemed debate coach, Bob Derryberry, called it the flow of the argument. You had to be able to follow it by keeping a "flow chart." Judges often agreed with rebuttals where you could hold up your legal pad and say, "My opponent had no substantive points to make. Therefore, my flow chart is empty."
I dare you to try to keep a flow chart on the recent arguments being passed off as debates on national TV. Not by paying rapt attention to the broadcast, nor by a close reading of the transcripts, is it possible to follow the candidates or the reporters who are in charge of whatever thinking might go on during the verbal jousting match.
That the American people seem willing to let their intelligence be trampled in this fashion is not the point. No contest between politicians has ever been expected to be intelligent, or even digestible. You might as well turn two country preachers loose on the subject of who killed Jesus.
So far, the presidential candidates have sounded more like evangelists than a nasal Norwegian and a badly cast Hollywood actor. They can hardly be blamed, when they are forced to respond to questions about born-again Christianity and abortion as if these are valid government issues.
The vice presidential candidates at least looked as if they had had a good night's sleep, although President Reagan's complaint that the Democrats use an unfair degree of stage make-up must be taken seriously. Can it be true that the gipper never got so much as a touch-up during all his years in the saddle?
Lies both cosmetic and statistical tend to glare under the debate spotlight. Laugh them off, voters. If we can't laugh at these bozos, the Moral Majority may well take over the rest of the government. Whatever you do, avoid taking seriously most of what they say, especially when they sound as strident as George Bush sounded in his Thursday night hysterics.
True, he felt that he had to make up for Reagan's Sunday night stupor, but 90 minutes at the same pitch is too much for even die-hard Republicans. Dr. D. would say, "That's why we take turns speaking. Bless our hearts, we musn't wear out our welcome."
GOP authorities now protest that the President was in the odd position of knowing too much to be coherent. From the sounds of it, the Vice President knew too little.
Anyone who has ever debated in a semi-final round, as the candidates are doing in front of millions this year, can empathize with them, to a degree. Sometimes you know you have the better evidence, but it won't roll off your tongue. You can't find where you put it, in your notes, or in the dark recesses of your mind.
Geraldine Ferraro knew what she had to do. She did not misplace one piece of evidence. After all, a woman must be twice as good, when competing with men, to even stay in the contest.
For many Americans, Vice President Bush shamed himself when he refused to give the Congresswoman the dignity of her title. Every time he began with, "Ms. Ferraro, let me help you understand, " women everywhere gritted our teeth, wanting her to have a come-back, but knowing that she risked being called "bitchy" if she said too much.
Congresswoman Ferraro pulled it off, with just the right touch. She finally called him on his condescending tone, getting wild applause after saying, mildly and calmly, "I almost resent, Vice President Bush, your patronizing attitude."
Only minutes after the debate ended, the all-male panel declared Bush the winner. He swaggered around, bragging that he "kicked a little ass." Historically speaking, those of us who will never forget that debate know that for us, it had a very different outcome.
RSS Feed
