Beacon 3.6

As of this writing, there may or may not be a debate tonight. Who knew? And it’s not even of the “Mac v. PC,” “your place v. mine,” or “watch UT get blown out again v. stick a fork in your eye for two hours” variety (although, speaking for myself, I can safely assert that the latter option in all three situations is the choice on the right side of history). No, the debate I speak of is the presidential debate between Maverick McPOW and Hopey Ochangealot. And, since this is yet another Dylan M. column in what has proven to be something of a masochistic motif for this semester, I guess I’ll have to talk about it.

A lot of importance has been placed on tonight’s debate. Heck, it's so important it might have even been canceled by the time you read this. If not, then, finally, this is the candidates’ time to address not only each other but the nation, directly, with nothing but the sweet mercy of a power outage or a random act of remote control vigilantism nap to stop them. Or, in case it is actually on, it's remotely possible that most of America might have something better to do on a Friday night than wait on bated breath for some beads of sweat, a frustrated eye roll, or an unfortunate slip of the thin veil guarding the condescension both candidates will be shoveling full force to determine the election.

But despite the potentially game changing impact of a random act of humanity (Oh, my God, McCain just farted on national TV. GAME OVER, MAN, GAME OVER), the chances of the debates truly affecting the election, in an immediate sense, seem slim. After all, it’s not as if the candidates have made much of a secret of their policies. Sure, I suppose it’s theoretically possible that Obama could come on stage, look at the camera, and say, “My plan to fix the economy is for the entire nation to hold hands and wish, really really hard. Trillions of dollars of debt are no match for the power of our dreams!” Or McCain might eat the head off a bat. Heck if I know. But, for the most part, we’ve heard (or had access to) all the information they’ll provide us, except on Friday, they’ll be doing it in thirty second sound clips.

I mean, we get it by now. It’s hard to remember a time when we weren’t being bombarded by presidential politics (oh 2006, we didn’t know how good we had it!). We already know where the candidates stand. We already know we have better things to do than, like, watch dudes trying to become the person who gets to catch the blame for making the tough calls fixing all the crap Bush has pulled. What good are the debates anyway?

For most people, not a lot. Sure, there may indeed be verifiably “undecided voters” hiding in the ether, hailing from foreign lands like “Colorado” and “Ohio,” and waiting ever so anxiously to support the individual who can successfully execute a pander of epic proportions. But as far as the rest of us are concerned? Let McCain take his nap already!

I mean, the candidates aren’t even hoping to make some argument or espouse some issue that will convince these voters of their merit. Instead, they’re battling over the same defining narratives that they’ve been arguing over for months. The actual issues haven’t and still won’t matter. But those are subjects for future columns (both the issues themselves and the lack of their coverage, as well as an elaboration upon what this “narrative” actually is).

For now, though, we (may or may not) have debates. Complicated questions answered in mostly irrelevant, thoroughly rehearsed minute long sound clips with already determined narratives dictating how a candidate will do in the debate before they even begin (McCain will be old and stolid but reliable and “not your normal Republican wink wink,” while Obama will be young, idealistic, and well-spoken, but distant, “elite,” and combative/effeminate/passionless/whatever).

Coverage of the debates, in an attempt to remain “balanced,” will consist of analysis of perception and how pundits think the performances (and the Oscar goes to...) will play with various demographics. A discussion of the merits of the issues, the truth of the assertions, and the realistic chances and consequences of delivery of these promises would too likely to be labeled as biased or, worse, boring. And when you’re dealing with a scripted, largely irrelevant debate on a Friday night a month and a half from the election, what could be worse than that?