Friday, April 18, 2008

Democratic Debate and American Democracy

Mark Thoma, Brad DeLong, and many others published a signed letter today rightfully criticizing the Democratic 'debate' on ABC from a couple days ago. The signers argue "The debate was a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world… The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson were a disgrace, and the subsequent attempts to justify them by claiming that they reflect citizens' interest are an insult to the intelligence of those citizens and ABC's viewers."

This seems like a continuation of the McArdle-Greenwald debate… The signers are certainly right that the debate was frivolous and reflected poorly on American Democracy. I also agree that the debate was an insult to the intelligence of U.S. citizens and ABC viewers.

However, when I see something I don't like provided, my first thought isn't necessarily to blame the supplier. The ultimate cause of drugs on the street, prostitution, soap operas, and E! is the large group of people who demand them. Demand (and the preferences of the ABC audience) was responsible for the direction of this debate. The pseudo-intellectual journalists who run the major media in the U.S. do not report about 'tabloid' stories because this is what they really care about. They do so, because this is what they American people care about. Alex Tabarrok rightly points out the revealed preference of Americans who after a week of especially tabloid-like politics made this debate the most watched of the campaign.

I suppose, the debate moderators could be more paternalistic, and steer the debate towards the EITC, gains from trade, Federal Reserve policy, or other such fascinating topics. Of course, fewer people would watch, and those who would, likely have already long made up their minds. The number of us who would enjoy a good policy debate is small, and the number who would be influenced by it is extremely small (Alternatively, a stupid policy debate about anti-gay, anti-immigrant, and anti-trade candidates might be popular but not particularly healthy). But, most voters do seem to care about the personal backgrounds of candidates. My impression is that this is especially true for marginal (usually uninformed) voters, who are the people the candidates most want to reach.

Remember, the candidates aren't innocent would-be public policy wonks. Personal background is what all three major candidates run on – hope, military, and political experience right? So, not surprisingly, the theme of the debate was personal issues. But, this isn't ultimately the candidates fault either. They respond to incentives and we tend to get the candidates we deserve running the types of campaigns that influence us (or at least the 'marginal voters' amongst us). The people who do care about the issues almost certainly know who they're going to vote for. And I honestly doubt they are watching for a stimulating policy discussion (who would want to listen to politicians for that?). They too are mostly just watching for that 'gotcha' moment that will change the campaign.

So, this is not a great situation and the writers of this letter are rightfully upset. I personally would like the Presidential debates to sound like some sort of Friedman-Galbraith debate. But unfortunately the incentives are not there in our democracy for candidates to campaign that way, and it is not really the media's fault that they are not. Blame the American people who seem to enjoy and are influenced by this stuff. But in the end, remember, we've got a better system than pretty much every other country.

No comments: