At Reason.com Peter Suderman (married to Megan McArdle) produces the best characterization of the “debate” I’ve read so far: “imagine if Statler and Waldorf performed a Samuel Beckett play while high”. After an analysis of the tremendously confusing and misleading statements of both candidates on health care he laments:
What are we supposed to make of this? What is anyone supposed to learn? How can you have better public policy, more effective governance, ideological disputes, arguments that matter when discussions are conducted like this? There are serious issues at stake, and serious discussions to be had about the government’s role in health care. This is exhausting and unproductive.
But it’s precisely what you’d expect when two people who are functionally illiterate but skilled in conveying public images on television square off in the spectacle that presidential debates have become.
Note: “functionally illiterate” does not mean that you cannot read. It means that you do not derive information through reading which I believe is a fair characterization of both President Trump and VP Joe Biden. Every day most of the people I encounter are functionally illiterate. That would be difficult for a person like me who prefers to communicate in writing if I weren’t also a convincing performer. I am my parents’ son: my dad was an attorney and my mom a vaudeville performer.
My take is not so much that everyone fails to understand what they read, though there are plenty of people like that, but that most people have trouble putting into words what they understand. That is an under-rated skill. Doing it well is even more uncommon. Jus like good writers are uncommon.
Steve
” Every day most of the people I encounter are functionally illiterate. That would be difficult for a person like me who prefers to communicate in writing if I weren’t also a convincing performer. I am my parents’ son: my dad was an attorney and my mom a vaudeville performer.”
One of the more fascinating paragraphs I’ve seen here, or anywhere.
Writing as if intended to be Shakespearian prose on blogs is a fools errand. Lord knows I write in short hand and on the fly, and often assume that anyone that I care should understand has the capacity to leap from lily pad to lily pad without me having to fill in. Although I’ve learned that is often not the case.
But what made me chuckle (you little devil, Dave) was the notion of performance. Give me time to solidify my arguments and lines, and I’ll walk into any meeting and perform like Robert De Niro. You have to have empathy, foresight, bravado, timing, be quick on your feet, etc etc and……….really believe what you are saying to do that. I win more arguments live than on paper.
There is considerable resonance between what attorneys (particularly British barristers and American trial lawyers) do and what actors do. While he was alive my dad in his own way was preparing me for the practice of law while at one point in my life (until my late 20s) I was very heavily involved in theater, from amateur to semi-professional to professional levels. I see buddies of mine on television on most days.
I have performed in many plays, from Moliere and Shakespeare to Edward Albee, and stage managed even more. That was another life.
It stood me in good stead. At another point in my career I was giving multiple presentations a day, frequently in Fortune 500 boardrooms.
I understand completely. Although, early in my career I was presenting to a major group head of a billion dollar multinational (The BOC Group, now Air Liquide) and he practically fell asleep.
Was it me, or him?? I only know I left the meeting not worried about me, but laughing at the situation. Maybe the chap had had a pint or two prior, if you know what I mean.