What Are They Afraid Of?
This evening at 9pm two of the candidates for President of the United States will participate in the first of three scheduled debates sponsored by the supposedly non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates. I say 'supposedly' because the two co-chairs are former chairs of the Republican and Democrat parties who have worked to make sure that the debates are, in fact, bi-partisan.
What are they afraid of?
This past Sunday, because they were not included in tonight's debates, Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchannan were invited to a mini-debate on Meet the Press. Meet the Press refused to consider inviting the other three Presidential candidates, Harry Browne, John Hagelin, and Howard Phillips.
What are they afraid of?
Do the Commission on Presidential Debates and the media not want greater voter participation? Since the Nixon/Kennedy debates in 1960, the percentage of eligible voters participating in presidential elections has been steadily declining -- with one exception. In 1960 63% of the eligible voters voted. In 1976 (the next debates) that number had dropped to 54%. Then 53%, 53%, and 50%. Then, in 1992 it jumped to 55%. But in 1996 it resumed its downward trend and was only 49%.
What happened in 1992? Why was 1992 different? The most obvious difference was that Ross Perot was included in the debates. Significant numbers of Americans became interested in the presidential election because someone other than a Republican or a Democrat was allowed national exposure.
Perhaps, despite their protestations to the contrary, the Commission on Presidential Debates and the media really don't want greater voter participation. But if they don't, why don't they? What are they afraid of?
Another set of numbers from those same years reinforces the point. In 1960, 66 million people, (about 1/3 of the total population) watched the Kennedy/Nixon debates. For every debate after that one, the pattern was the same: the number of viewers stayed about the same even though the population of the US was growing.
Until 1992. When Ross Perot was included in the 1992 debates, viewership jumped by a third. Not only that, but each successive debate drew more viewers than the previous, an historically unusual occurrence.
Then came 1996. Perot was not in the debates. Viewership plummeted by 50% and continued to plummet with each succeeding debate.
Don't the media want viewers? What are they afraid of?
As further evidence, consider the situation in Minnesota two years ago when Jesse Ventura was elected governor. Although far behind in the polls (less than 10%), by being included in the gubernatorial debates he eventually won the governorship, mostly because of people who had never voted before became interested and energized by his candidacy.
Even with all this evidence supporting a more open election process, the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the media, continue to ignore the other candidates.
Why? What are they afraid of?
-- I should make an aside here to point out that there are seven candidates who are both legally qualified and on the ballot in sufficient states to be mathematically capable of winning the electoral college vote (which is what really elects the President and VP). --
The Natural Law Party will be on the ballot in 38 states; the Constitution Party will be on the ballot in 42 states; the Green Party in 43 states; and the Reform Party in 48 states. Only the Libertarian Party, along with the Republicans and Democrats will be on the ballot in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
Given the hurdles put in place to prevent anyone other than the Republicans and Democrats from being on the ballot, isn't that news? Why isn't it reported more widely?
What are they afraid of?
I'll tell you what I think they're afraid of. It's really a very common fear, a very human fear. What they're afraid of is change. They're afraid of the new. They're afraid of the unknown.
The status quo is nice and warm and fuzzy. Don't upset the applecart.
Traditional media have been threatened and many have fought this upsetting internet. Traditional politicians feel threatened and continue to fight the emergence of third parties.
But, you know, there's another way of saying 'status quo' and that's static, unchanging, dull, boring.
Fortunately, the American people reject the boring. They reject the dull. They reject the unchanging, the static. They embrace the new, the challenging, the exciting.
Not always. Not in every aspect of their lives. But predominately so, particularly the young.
The politicians may try to get you to believe that rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is an exiting change. The media may help them foster that illusion. But I believe that deep down, the American people know better.
What are they afraid of?
They're afraid of learning the truth.
Presented 10/03/2000 to Queen City Toastmasters
Presented by Rick Pasotto on 2000-10-03
