Debate strategy and kids. {THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICS}

Tunakid 1 is 15, meaning that this is the last general election in which he won't be eligible to vote. We made him watch the debate as part of his civic duty. Tunakid 4 is 10, so she sits out only one more than him, and whoa, this went fast. She watched as well, but more because it meant she got to stay up late and have snacks.

We all hate debates. They are nearly always terrible, and this one was no exception. I was surprised, however, by something my kids found abhorrent. 

I can't remember when, but in my adult lifetime, it became fashionable to say things like "When I am President..." or "As president, I will..." or "On day 1 I will...", especially when those claims are unreasonably grand, or out of the authority of any President anyway. When done properly, like "I would veto bill xyz as President" I don't have an issue, personally. It's an honest assessment of an issue from the point of view of the office for which they are campaigning.

Every single time any candidate said anything like that, my kids got squeamish. They thought it sounded arrogant and grandiose. Tunakid 1 kept saying things like "This guy is thinking waaaaay past the sale".

It will be interesting to see how this generation votes, and what is important to them. I wonder if we may see a shift,  or if it's just my own house.

I'd think with the accessibility of information everyone would be more cynical, but every generation has a large number of people that will believe them as if a president can rule by decree.

j_tso said:

I'd think with the accessibility of information everyone would be more cynical, but every generation has a large number of people that will believe them as if a president can rule by decree.

Absolutely. People ascribe way too much power to that office and blame the person sitting in it for all of society's evils if they don't like them, and praise them for everything good if they do. Of course, it helps that the presidency has legitimately become a lot more powerful in the past 60-ish years as Congress has abdicated a lot of what they are supposed to be doing, particularly in military matters, to the executive branch.

Having said all that, debates are about marketing. Those candidates are making grandiose promises because that's how you stand out and get people to vote for you. If you're not going to solve all their problems, they will vote for someone else, or, more likely, just stay home.

In reply to tuna55 :

I commend the civic responsibility lesson .

They are playing to the crowd. That's what they are supposed to do. 
 

The sad fact is that your kids are probably better informed and more knowledgeable about the political process than 98% of the electorate. 
 

When the general population was better informed, it made sense to shoot straight. Playing to the (knowledgeable) crowd.  Now people are so misinformed they think we have a king who can rule by decree. (And we sort of do). Still playing to the crowd. 

Agreed.

John Welsh said:

In reply to tuna55 :

I commend the civic responsibility lesson .

Agreed.

Are you making them watch all the debates?  Both sides?

Kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Worth a listen!

now that you mention it, i do recall candidates used to say "if elected" before making their ridiculous claims of heroism.

If you want to show how things have changed, show them this:

ProDarwin said:

John Welsh said:

In reply to tuna55 :

I commend the civic responsibility lesson .

Agreed.

Are you making them watch all the debates?  Both sides?

I don't expect a democratic primary debate, but yes, they will be required also if they happen. We also had them watch the last two inaugurations. I have ideals and morals and strong opinions, but my job isn't to indoctrinate my kids, it's to inform them. 

John Welsh said:

In reply to tuna55 :

I commend the civic responsibility lesson .

Thanks! We read Psalm 146 along with that lesson

02Pilot said:

If you want to show how things have changed, show them this:

...and if you want to make it really interesting, have one kid just listen to the audio and another watch.

I think I said this last time around, but they really need to get rid of the audience because they turn it into Jerry Springer.
Pot shots and interrupting make someone look small without the cheering and jeering.

All government debates are selling a bag of E36 M3. If they were reasonable or told the truth, no one would bother to tune in. Much like clickbait, sensationalism sells so they have to make sensational statements to get the front page coverage. Take everything they say with a grain of salt. They all have their fingers crossed behind their backs. 

tuna55 said:

John Welsh said:

In reply to tuna55 :

I commend the civic responsibility lesson .

Thanks! We read Psalm 146 along with that lesson

I had to look that one up...

...and although I'm a firm believer in a secular government with separation of Church and State, I think a lot of politicians out there aught to look that up as well.

In reply to j_tso :

It's not about serious discourse anymore. It's about viewership and ratings. 

tuna55 said:

I can't remember when, but in my adult lifetime, it became fashionable to say things like "When I am President..." or "As president, I will..." or "On day 1 I will...", especially when those claims are unreasonably grand, or out of the authority of any President anyway. When done properly, like "I would veto bill xyz as President" I don't have an issue, personally. It's an honest assessment of an issue from the point of view of the office for which they are campaigning.

Every single time any candidate said anything like that, my kids got squeamish. They thought it sounded arrogant and grandiose. Tunakid 1 kept saying things like "This guy is thinking waaaaay past the sale".

It will be interesting to see how this generation votes, and what is important to them. I wonder if we may see a shift,  or if it's just my own house.

A totally understandable and accurate assessment of a weird style choice to anyone who doesn't know that it's basically a tradition for every candidate to speak as if they're magically predestined to win. If aliens witnessed this they'd also think that every candidate was way too sure of their victory.

Beer Baron said:

02Pilot said:

If you want to show how things have changed, show them this:

...and if you want to make it really interesting, have one kid just listen to the audio and another watch.

One day, want to run that experiment in one of my classes. I haven't had the opportunity - wrong level, wrong group, whatever - but it's lurking in the back of my mind.

02Pilot said:

Beer Baron said:

02Pilot said:

If you want to show how things have changed, show them this:

...and if you want to make it really interesting, have one kid just listen to the audio and another watch.

One day, want to run that experiment in one of my classes. I haven't had the opportunity - wrong level, wrong group, whatever - but it's lurking in the back of my mind.

I know the story. I confess I haven't listened or watched myself. It  might be an interesting experiment.

I wish there was some way to get them to follow formal debate rules, instead of turning the whole thing into a shoutfest.  I've often thought if I was the moderator at one of these things, I'd have one of those small air horns in my pocket.  I'd pull it out and blow it when the first person responded to a question with a non-answer.  

In reply to stuart in mn :

Cut their mic. Turn to the other candidate.

"Your opponent has chosen not to answer the question, so I will turn the question to you."

Has anybody's mind been changed by a presidential debate?  

In reply to spitfirebill :

Mine has. Many times. Including last night. 

Toyman! said:

All government debates are selling a bag of E36 M3. If they were reasonable or told the truth, no one would bother to tune in. Much like clickbait, sensationalism sells so they have to make sensational statements to get the front page coverage. Take everything they say with a grain of salt. They all have their fingers crossed behind their backs. 

 

It's funny you say that, I've been rewatching SouthPark. Last night was the episode where the kids have to choose between a "Giant Douche" or a "Turd Sandwich."

On a serious note, I'm only a little ways into that video posted of JFK vs Nixon, for some reason I found it interesting he used "GNP" vs "GDP."