A tiresome campaign

San Diego, CA — When I left Manila two weeks ago, it was a relief to be away from the political noise surrounding the early campaigns of the presidential hopefuls. I spent two quiet weeks in Sydney where I enjoyed my grandchildren, did housework and cooked dinner and I didn’t have to watch the Philippine news unless I wanted to. Now, in an adult household in San Diego, the TV is constantly turned on to the news, much of which is about the coming US presidential elections in November 2016. That’s six months after our May elections but the campaigns are already in full gear as the Democrats and Republicans go through the primaries and debates that will determine who their respective standard bearers will be.

It is much too noisy and tiresome. Too much information — a lot of it trivia — is broadcast repeatedly. The candidates are uninteresting and some of what they say is insulting to the viewers and certain religious and ethnic groups. But that is all there is on television news. I feel like I’m back home, except that I am not invested in any of the candidates.

While the Democrats will have to choose between only two major candidates — Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders — the Republicans have 10 aspirants for the party’s nomination. Both Clinton and Sanders are quite impressive, but the quality of the Republican candidates is uneven, the list is far from inspiring.

So far, the debates hosted by the different media networks have showed up the aspirants in flesh and blood, far from the idealized profiles created by spinmeisters, and the Republicans have not performed very well. They have been petty and shallow, they attack one another and President Obama instead of talking about hard policy issues. They whine and exaggerate, keeping fact checkers busy calling out their lies. On the other hand, the debate among the Democrats that I watched before I left Manila was on a much higher level, with the aspirants sharing intelligent and thoughtful viewpoints on issues that divide the country.

The Republicans have gone through three televised debates, none of which has impressed observers outside of the Republican faithful. After the second debate, one candidate insisted that the exercise be limited to two hours. And after the third debate which has been described as “disastrous,” the party realized that the process has not helped their candidates project themselves and their platforms in a positive light. For one, the debate format simply does not lend itself to a forum featuring 10 unequal candidates. There simply isn’t enough opportunity to give each candidate equal time and exposure. Besides, as is the nature of the media, the more aggressive participants get the most exposure even if they don’t have anything intelligent to say. Misstatements are blown up for ridicule; politics is mined for entertainment.

The Republicans are obviously fragmented. With 10 presidential hopefuls grabbing at each other’s necks, it is far from being unified. Which is probably why the party has attempted to take control of the situation by controlling the coverage of the debates. The campaigns of the different candidates have drafted a letter to be signed by the candidates addressed to the networks, about the rules they want observed in future debates. If the networks don’t agree, it has been suggested that the Republican party itself livestream their own debates on the Internet.

Apparently, the party doesn’t want to see its candidates having to raise their hands to answer a quick question. It doesn’t like “yes” or “no” questions that don’t give candidates time to provide a substantial answer. It doesn’t approve of “lightning rounds” that require them to think on their feet. And it doesn’t like the idea of candidates asking questions from other candidates. It also has an axe to grind about the media’s coverage of the debate. It doesn’t like the cameras capturing reaction shots of members of the audience or the moderators. It doesn’t want the camera to focus on empty podiums when the candidates don’t make it back on time after toilet break. It has asked networks not to use camera angles taken from behind the candidates that show them consulting their notes. There are other conditions, but you get their drift. The party doesn’t want its candidates to look stupid, as if that would be the networks’ fault.

To be fair, it has been reported that not all the Republican candidates are willing to sign such a letter. However, the very fact that such a letter has even been drafted does not sit well with many Americans who expect anyone who aspires to be president to be able to withstand all kinds of media pressure, including the reactions of a live TV audience and the debate moderators. They should know the issues and their platforms very well, be able to think on their feet, and come up with intelligent responses to questions coming from left field.

While I am not looking forward to the campaign at home, I pray that the participants in our presidential debates display more gravitas, integrity and self-confidence than what the Republican Party has imposed on the American people.