Thinking of Watching Tonight's Republican Presidential Debate? Don't Bother

“Television seems particularly useful to the politician who can be charming but lacks ideas.”

                                                                           - Joe McGinniss, The Selling of the President

On Thursday, the Fox News Channel will host the first of an interminable series of primary debates that will air across the cable news landscape during the 2016 presidential campaign season.

I will not be watching.

My objection to the proceeding is not based on a specific aversion to the Republican Party, which gets the first chance to showcase its candidates; nor is it grounded in a distaste for Fox News. Moderators Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace, and Brett Baier have established themselves in the field of political journalism and will undoubtedly attempt to ask probing questions. The candidates, however, will not answer most of the queries, at least not directly. Instead, they will steer their responses to the comfortable ground of rehearsed, gossamer talking points.  

Afterward, a legion of pundits will flood the airwaves to bicker over which contenders “had a good night” and which presidential aspirants failed to stand out amid the crowded field. Their analysis, as usual, will be speculative and reactive, but not informative or predictive. And, for one night, the political cognoscenti will pretend that this debate matters as much as the fundraising race taking place away from the stage lights.

But the debate does not matter. It will be presented as a contest of ideas, but will devolve into a cacophony of Obama barbs and carefully-crafted, poll-tested sound bites. Fervent pledges to repeal Obamacare will be proffered, but do not expect any substantive discussion about the real problem with our health care system, one which President Obama’s landmark legislation failed to remedy: the cost. Planned Parenthood will be portrayed as an abortion factory that must be defunded, even though only three percent of the organization’s business involves pregnancy termination procedures. The government, moreover, is already legally prohibited from providing money to subsidize abortion. Donald Trump will be afforded extensive airtime to expound his views on the existential threat Mexicans pose to the American way of life. Will any of Trump’s competitors or inquisitors ask him to compare his nativist rhetoric to historical examples involving the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, or any other ethnic immigrant group? Doubtful. Will anyone press Trump to consider the possibility that the Drug War has created internal destabilization within Mexico and Central America, resulting in migration from those areas to the United States? Unlikely, unless Rand Paul rediscovers his libertarianism and is allowed to speak for longer than thirty seconds at a time.

Not to be outdone, Mike Huckabee will recite his admonition that Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran “is marching the Israelis to the door of the oven.” ™ The Huckster will then bask in the applause of his partisans. He will not be asked about the Israeli nuclear arsenal. He will not be required to acknowledge Israel’s military superiority in the Middle East. He will likely avoid any condemnation for alluding to the Holocaust in analyzing a complicated act of diplomacy that in no way resembles the systematic annihilation of six million European Jews. In fact, one can safely surmise that at least one of Huckabee’s opponents will trot out a trite and simplistic comparison between Obama and Neville Chamberlain while denouncing the agreement.

Ultimately, these debates serve only as spectacle. They appeal not to the mind of the viewer, but to the heart and the gut. They supply ideologues on both sides of the spectrum with an outlet to channel their righteous outrage. They provide some fodder for news networks in need of material during an otherwise slow period. They in no way advance the interests of a democratic republic in need of an informed electorate.

So, like most Americans, I will be otherwise occupied on Thursday night. Let the political media collectively wag its finger at the disengaged masses. Perhaps we will take this process more seriously when the media takes this process more seriously. Until then, I hope they continue to enjoy Donald Trump’s campaign.

-30-

In Defense of Philly Fans

On Monday, my attention was drawn to a post on Crossing Broad about the myriad complaints of Tampa Bay Rays players and staffers as they recalled the 2008 World Series. The post drew its material from an article penned by Tampa Bay Times Rays beat writer Marc Topkin. Topkin's column is replete with gripes about the weather, which (as we all remember) caused a significant delay during Game 5, and frustrations over an extended stay in the remote locale of Delaware. The rain-delayed contest created a lodging predicament for Tampa Bay's traveling party, which had originally planned to return home to prepare for either Game 6 or the offseason; therefore, the team had to scramble to find new hotel accommodations. Judging by the tone of the piece, one might think the Rays were compelled to stay at a Motel 6 in Claymont. Instead, the squad found shelter in the cozy confines of the Hotel du Pont in Wilmington.  Not too shabby, huh?

The "Delaware" excuse strikes me as particularly ridiculous because the distance from Citizens Bank Park to Wilmington is roughly equivalent to the drive from Tampa to St. Petersburg. Nevertheless, the Rays have a point about the weather. As we all know, baseball was meant to be played indoors, on a glorified carpet, in front of a crowd so listless that the only sound one hears at the "Trop," aside from the occasional cowbell and the ball-strike calls from the home plate umpire, is the steady hum of the air conditioning system.

However, the treatment bestowed on Tampa Bay's ball club by the "Philly fans" emerges as the primary cause of the Rays' ruination in October 2008. Below is a sampling of the Rays' memories of their Philadelphia "welcome," per Topkin:

Pitching coach Jim Hickey:

My ex-wife was there and she was appalled at the behavior of their fans, especially toward ours. At one point she went to get the security guard, who was actually an on-duty police officer, and he laughed at her and didn't help at all.

The fans lived up to their belligerent level. They revel in that type of thing. They wear it as a badge of honor, but it really ought to be a source of embarrassment to them.

OF Rocco Baldelli:

Anybody who talked about the city of Philadelphia at that time, nobody is exaggerating any of those thoughts and comments. Whatever the opposite of hospitable would be to you, that's what the people of Philadelphia were to us at that time.

It didn't seem like the people of the city were happy that their team was in the World Series. It seemed like they were more happy and excited to take out their anger on the opposition and to degrade us.

They were lined up on the street "gesturing" at us. Many, many gestures. They were banging on our bus.

And, to say the least, I don't think our family and friends who were at the games were able to enjoy it as much as they should have been able to.

I think it's fair to say we didn't make a good impression.

Honestly, these unfair general assessments based on isolated incidents offend me. Yet, somehow, I have swallowed my natural urge to lash out belligerently (we're born with it, apparently- kind of like original sin) and have opted to forgive. I can empathize with the Rays. For them, the idea of playing in front of any fans, let alone passionate fans who can make noise without resorting to mindless gimmicks like the cowbell, must have seemed completely foreign during the '08 World Series.

Less excusable and more odious is the stubborn refusal of lazy sports writers and personalities to disabuse themselves of the trite "Philly fans" trope. You know what I mean. In all likelihood, you've seen the occasional "hot take" on ESPN. You've heard the radio rants. And you've read the cliché-ridden sports columns and scrolled through the "listicles" that document the many sins of Philly fans. But, just in case, let's review the talking points:

"They" threw snowballs at Santa Claus (and the Cowboys, too!). "They" threw batteries at J.D. Drew. "They" cheered when Michael Irvin was carted off the field after sustaining a career-ending injury. "They" vomit on little girls. "They" booed Donovan McNabb on Draft Day. "They" criticize their own players. "They" get drunk and rowdy at games and physically assault or insult fans of opposing teams. "They" had the great misfortune of not being born in Boston (otherwise known as the greatest sports town on Earth, according to Bostonians) or New York (generally acknowledged as the center of the universe, according to New Yorkers).

In sum, we Philly fans are regarded as uniquely awful, a menacing monolith that threatens the fragile peace within the sports world. We are collectively defined by the worst elements of the fan base, forced to answer for the crimes of our drunken and unruly brethren. Meanwhile, other cities avoid the general stigma that attaches to Philadelphia when fans behave badly. Cleveland was able to move past "Bottlegate." No media figure dared call out "Boston fans" as a group when a number of Twitter twerps unleashed racist invective after Joel Ward, a black hockey player, scored a goal in an overtime playoff game against the Bruins. Were "L.A. fans" collectively shamed after Bryan Stow was nearly beaten to death for the crime of rooting for the San Francisco Giants? Does anyone recall the sterling reputation of Cardinals fans experiencing some measure of tarnish after an ugly encounter with Ferguson protestors? Was there any sustained outrage after a number of Yankees fans threw garbage on the field after a call went against their team in the 2004 ALCS? Why hasn't the ugly incident with Steve Bartman forced us to reconsider how we view Cubs fans? In these cases, we did not bother creating generalizations because such thinking is stupid and illogical.

Nonetheless, if any of these incidents had occurred in Philadelphia, one could easily predict the Pavlovian response from the national media. For example, in some of these cases I could easily foresee "First Take" provocateur Skip Bayless hysterically demanding that Pennsylvania governor Tom Wolf call in the National Guard.

There seem to be different rules for Philadelphia sports fans. Anecdotes about boorish behavior in the stands are offered as proof to support the myth of "Philly fans"; meanwhile, acts of generosity from the fan base are ignored and evidence that suggests the caricature of Philly partisans might not match reality is dismissed as exceptional. Who cares if Philadelphians helped the Phillies raise nearly one million dollars for ALS patients? What does it matter that the overwhelming majority of spectators can attend a game, keep to themselves, and avoid ejection from the stadium or arrest? Part-time governor and full-time Jerry Jones companion Chris Christie thinks Philadelphia fans are the worst in the country, so it must be true!

The entire exercise strikes me as a grand example of confirmation bias. However, a disconcerting number of sports scribes cannot seem to let go of the delicious irony that within the "City of Brotherly Love"  there might exist some unruly fans. Rather than aspire to nuance, acknowledge the ubiquitous nature of bad fan behavior, and undertake an investigation of the problem, they continue to advance the "Philly fan" myth for the sole purpose of filling column space in a newspaper. So it goes.

-30-