I'm surprised by the lack of protests when the "lesser" candidates are shut out of the debates, and the way the media decides the "favorites" and keeps them in our faces 24/7.

I listen to Clinton and Obama, and I don't feel a thing. Being female, I'd love to see a woman in the White House. But I can think of half a dozen women I think would be better there than Clinton. I'd like to see a color other than white; a fresh, intellegent, real leader-type in the White House. But I can think of several I'd rather see there than Obama. And I watch McCain, and feel sick.

If Obama was really for change, which he is not, then he would be for cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget.
Read this:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5009

Or he'd be for Palestinian rights, or single payer, or not taking money from lobbyists (he does---google Pam Martens article on his lobbyist donations), or for ending the Cuban trade embargo and dozens of other issues where Mr. Obama is just the same old, same old.

Sure there's political debate in this country.

"Anyone who doesn't support Hillary is a sexist!"
"Anyone who doesn't support Obama is a corporatist!"
"Anyone who doesn't support the Democrats is a Republican!"
"Anyone who doesn't support the Republicans is a terrorist!"

See? You can't get deeper or more complex than that.

Ever since Dennis Kucinich was forced out of the candidacy, there has been VERY little discussion of the--can you say it?--ISSUES! I dropped out following on D.K.'s heels because I KNEW that was the death knell of serious discussion. All that is left is personal sniping and nit-picking on each other's ways of running.

Now that Nader is in, that will insure more fodder for for the party loyalists (Some who don't even KNOW that they are! My feeling is that if you still care about watching the two remainders and debating it--you ARE a party loyalist.) Those who followed D.K. to the end and don't pick up the Green Party/Nader banners are hypocrites. You want REAL CHANGE and not the kind that
"O & C" are spewing rhetorical about, then you better start backing Ralph or Cynthia; otherwise, you have no reason to bitch and whine AFTER THE FACT.

Presumed frontrunner Barack Obama does himself a disservice when he accuses Ralph Nader of having an inflated ego for presuming to enlarge the debate by entering into it.

I had thought better of him.

For the first fifteen minutes of Meet the Press this morning, the tv was full of all the issues that are glaringly absent in the so-called presidential debates. Whether you like him or not, Ralph Nader spoke the issues, plainly, eloquently, with clarity and logic and passion. Then the camera turned to the remaining 45 minutes of vacuous sloganeering and gossipy punditry and the blue pill media took over like an eclipse of reality. A good psychiatrist is more interested in what his patient does not want to talk about than in the fluff that replaces it. Pathology is indeed interesting, and the only thing that makes this denial-fest worth watching.

Juliania -

Me too.

Perhaps we all need to take a look in the metaphorical mirror. What passes for political debate in modern America, even here in Common Dreams, is a farce. Comments here, including mine, are usually quick and to the point for the reasons cited in the article above. Answers which are more lengthy, well, some hit and some miss. I love to read them all, however. I follow politics the way some of my friends follow sports.

This may seem like a tangent, but bear with me. I've often heard that most Americans in Revolutionary times had read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense." In fact, I believe over 100,000 copies were in print, and commonly passed around from one reader to another. In a population of 3 million or so, we may speculate that half a million had read Mr. Paine's essay.

Considering that, I sought out "Common Sense" on line last fall and read it. I found I was barely able to comprehend this pamphlet, an essay which many claim led to the Declaration of Independence. This despite my post-graduate degree.

It wasn't the language that was the barrier, it was the necessity of comprehending an extended thought. The ability to sustain, juggle if you will, many ideas at once until the final point is made, is not a reading skill common to modern Americans. This type of writing was common to readers of an earlier age. Readers who were acquainted with classical arguments and their presentation.

Imagine. "Common Sense" was read and understood by shopkeepers, craftsmen, and laborers of the late 18th century.

Today we won't sit still for more than a sound-bite. Is it any wonder that we find ourselves in such "interesting times?"

An hour and a half of debate time, and again, no substantial differences were proven (rhetorical flourish does not equal "proof"). I turned off the debate, feeling like Harrison Bergeron's parents. Unsure of what I just saw, unable to recall anything, but... dang, Hillary looked purty, and Barack had a couple-a "ha-ha's". Oh yeah, and some "maybe we'll be nice to Fidel's brother."

Seems like it's the debates that have also become "all hat and no cattle" since Dennis Kucinich exited the race. I will never forget the shoddy treatment that the networks gave him, between the minimal air time (as with all "lower-tier" candidates), the impromptu rules changes and the revoked invitation that denied him further debate appearances.

As honest as Greenberg's story is, he himself has proven over the years that political debat is dead. As a longtime reader of the Democrat Gazette, Greenburg has been a viscious attact dog for neo con America. His high brow opnion with regard to debate is put on its head when looking at his "farewell address" to Molly Ivins.

He hates the Clintons, and is one of the few people that still believes that White Water was a great scandal.

I have never heard of this man disagreeing with anything the Bush White House has done. The Democrat Gazette on a whole is one of the best papers in the U.S., but its editorial board (Greenberg et. al) is just as crazed as the Washington Times (Tucker from MSNBC used to sit on the board). Common Dreams should reconsider ever publishing anymore of this man's trash in the future, becuase if one of his more common rants was listed here it would be flooded with letters of outrage.

This is the only reasonably intelligent editorial I've ever read from the pen of Paul Greenburg.

skeezyka you may have just hit on something. "The people" are part of the problem; we have gotten in a rut about difference of opinion and have taken to calling people nasty names and engaging in gossip and speculation about people we have never met or spoken to. After members of the media put their spin and their bias on the proceedings, candidates with legitimate differences, no matter how civil, can come out smelling like a skunk. Over the years, Americans have watched way too many shows such as Crossfire, Hannity and O'Reily and our differences now become words of war with fellow citizens. I too wish other non-media groups would host and sponsor the debates (ie. League of Women Voters, the Carter Center, etc). Holding the media people a bay and in the back of the room, lets the audience and viewers get a better, less biased picture of the candidate and their positions on the issues of the day. Then there is the questions that lead to misdirection (asking a woman candidate about her husband and her wardrobe, etc instead of her positions on policy). The softball questions that do not ask a candidate to explain their position or their policies. The request for comment on what other people call them - Couric's recent remark about Refrigerdare comes to mind; what a waste of air time and the public's time. There is little illumination today, despite all the shows and talk. Common sense doesn't seem to be anywhere.

The debates have been boring as hell since Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were unfairly excluded. Hillary and Obama are too right-wing, too pro-war, too pro-Israel, too pro-corporations, and too pro military-industrial complex war profiteering for me to consider voting for either one of them.

There have been no debates, certainly not on the Republican side. I thought debates had something to do with consideration of the issues on hand, not with personality games. They're a joke.

Juliana, do you have a reference for that charge? I can't find one.

kathyodat

Detrimental Effects or Current Primary System:

The inevitable forced departures of many viable candidates, including of Kuchinich & Edwards,from the presidential race for lack of funding underscores the prime failure in our electoral process. The costs of our drawn out primaries force out the best presidential choices with the least ties to special interests--hence leaving this vital position open to those with the most ties to special interests and least to offer.

Until we abandon these wasteful carnival events--and adopt a single primary date for all states with equal radio/ TV time allotted to the candidates--this malfunctioning system will continue to exclude the best people from the most important position on earth.

I'm glad there are no real debates. I can't listen to anything for more the 30 seconds I'm so used to the grabs on telly. No, if you can't solve the world's problems in thirty seconds then I'm not your man.

I mean, if god made the world in six days surely you can conduct a full debate in half a bloody minute. I mean I don't want any debate clogged up with facts. They're boring!

Besides, the media digest the facts for us, they condense them, you know, like milk. They give us what we need, in thirty seconds, it's a marvel, gives you time to visit the loo, get another beer and some peanuts.

The thirty-second debate, man, that's progress!

www.dangerouscreation.com

I definitely won't vote for Hillary the Hawk, but why does Obama want to make the military larger? Do his plans include more war? Hillary and Obama, along with the Republican gangsters, are a very scary bunch.

Skeezyks 1:53 (and David Grayling above-- funny!)
You hit it on the head, friend. We are overfed, undereducated, out of shape, have developed an aversion to work, an overdeveloped love of money and comfort, and an underdeveloped ability to focus and think. I suspect this is what really caused Rome to fall. Some people suspect the lead in their water pipes was a contributing factor. Now we have chemicals in our food. Keep up the debate, folks. It's good to use your brain.

as a person who enjoyed policy debate in college and in high school, i'm always disappointed by the debates i see every 4 year election cycle. the debates should be sponsored by non partisan institutions, organized and judged by professional debating societies and conducted in an environment that's conducive to debate (notice courtrooms are quiet places). there should be more debates, each focusing on a specific issue and each candidate assuming the affirmative and negative positions: like a debate, like a trial. in the primaries it would be advantageous to have the candidates randomly pair off (say gravel against clinton on war, or edwards vs obama on economic justice) and debate one issue for an hour that could be replayed on npr or cspan for the public to digest. it would be less expensive and would highlight both the issues and styles of the candidates. more debates on individual topics not 17 debates (many of them w/ multiple candidates who share similiar opinions) on 15 different subjects at a time.

but it's moot, b/c the american public cannot digest information that isn't dumbed down. without increased consciousness, a meaningful debate format would still be useless. americans have lost many of the critical thinking skills required (attention for example) to examine policy. just look at the surge of american support for the iraq war in 2003, the misinformation that was repeated by many again and again. it isn't merely the msm's fault, it's our fault for not pointing out those obvious lies to our neighbors and even after we did point out the misinformation it took 4 years for the country to shift (noted in 2006 voter surveys)and oppose the occupation.

one of b jordan's moving speeches (DNC 1976) can be read or listened to along with other examples of US rhetoric at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/newtop100speeches.htm

......peace.......

Overuse of TV and computers has also contributed to our dumbing-down. See Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander.

skeezyks, interesting comment. I think that you're right.

Sometimes I feel that Americans are stupid and hateful, but then I see others, like those on Common Dreams, and those fighting for our rights in the ACLU and the CCR, and the regular people who took it upon themselves to question the official 9-11 story and research it without pay, and I feel proud of us.

I work with some of the nastiest people you'll ever meet, but then I work with some who are basically good, but only exposed to the Limbaugh/O'Reilly view of things. They can be reached, but not with complicated logic, that's for sure. I'm not sure what will reach them, but I keep trying to keep friendly relations with them, and throw in my point of view when they start spewing their hate lines. I've had people tell me they've NEVER heard anyone say the things I say. It expands their minds.

And it turns out that there are others who don't like the hate spewing, but are too polite or intimidated to speak up. So it's good to be "out" at work. Otherwise, both the ditto heads and the closet liberals think that "everyone" is a right wing republican. If nothing else, being out stops a lot of the hate, because they don't want to hear our side of it. If everytime they are hateful, someone confronts them, they censor themselves. And that makes for a more pleasant work environment.

OK, I seem to have led to a defense of non-debate here. Ironic.

Skeezyks is write to invoke Tom Paine as a model of eloquence. Whenever I read the first sentence of Paine's first issue of The Crisis (which Spiro Agnew misused against opponents of the Vietnam War), I get shivers up my spine. He wrote it after the British had smashed Washington's army in New York in late 1776 and chased it across New Jersey and the Delaware River into Pennsylvania. Americans wondered whether their revolution was now over and they would have to return to British rule. Paine wrote the following to rally them:

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

See the rest of it at http://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/c-01.htm. Replace "Britain" with "Bush" and his words are oddly appropriate to us.

Pundits are people who churn out column after column that ask rhetorical questions for which they provide dishonest answers carefully crafted to absolve the American ruling class of accountability for their many crimes, and/or bolster the unearned and undeserved legitimacy of their right to rule over the rest of us. So you talk about what a wonderful, eloquent debater and staunch defender of the Constitution Barbara Jordan was, but fail to mention the systematic, bipartisan assault on that Constitution currently underway. Nor do you mention the deliberately marginalized inheritors of Jordan's mantle among this year's crop of candidates: Dennis Kuchinich, Ron Paul, or Mike Gravel.

Gee, wouldn't it be swell if we had real political debates again in this country? Only if that question is left unanswered, because any real political debate would inevitably be in the form of a long, long bill of indictment against the American establishment. And the greater, unanswered rhetorical question hovering in the air behind this one is always the same, "How much offal are you going to eat, America, before you decide you've had enough?"

skeezyks, thanks for the reference. I started reading Common Sense. It is thrilling, exciting, I feel like I'm reading the birth of a nation. Every high school student should read it, and teachers should teach students to comprehend compound sentences. I'm excerpting the following:

In the second half of the 17th century, the literacy rate for adult men in New England is estimated to have been as high as 95%, more than twice the estimated literacy rate for men in England. American women had literacy rates higher than 60%. Nowhere in the world was literacy greater.

Here's the link to Common Sense:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/commonsense/text.html

According to Wikipedia, the US ranks 21st in literacy (99%). As far as I can determine, this is from the CIA World Factbook, 2006. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has drafted the following definition: "Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in the wider society." I suspect this is not an especially high standard to achieve, considering our dropout rate. We need to teach more than basic reading skills.

Thomas Paine is describing the oppression of our current administration in his tract. We put ourselves here, it's up to us to get ourselves out.

kathyodat

first, get rid of your tv. second, get rid of your t.v.
no, i'm serious, get rid of your t.v.!

there's an alternative: the internet, something which
we've only begun to use for effective political communication.

Hey, here's another good anti-King George line from "The Crisis" that works well today:

Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man.

Remember 'The Advocates' show on public television? Pro and con were assigned to advocates, with rules rather like a court of law -- cross examination and the like. There was a judge-like figure in charge.

One of the advocates was a young man named Michael Dukakis.

In my advocacy of direct democracy I regard this show as a sort of prototype of the new electronic form of democratic dialogue leading up to electronic plebiscites.

It has been slammed as "government by debating society." It would be a distinct improvement.

From "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine:

"It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of sorrow; the evil is not sufficiently brought to their doors to make them feel the precariousness with which all American property is possessed. But let our imaginations transport us for a few moments to Boston, that seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to renounce a power in whom we can have no trust. The inhabitants of that unfortunate city, who but a few months ago were in ease and affluence, have now no other alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to beg. Endangered by the fire of their friends if they continue within the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they leave it. In their present condition they are prisoners without the hope of redemption, and in a general attack for their relief, they would be exposed to the fury of both armies. "

Substitute a few nouns to update the conflict, and see if Mr. Paine's words still apply. Then ask yourself if the time spent watching televised "debates" was well spent.

If I seem sanctimonious, it's just because I live in an area with no cable. It doesn't make me pure, but I'm not deprived either.

Think for yourself and find a few good friends who are willing to discuss or argue politics without rancor. It feels good. Even when it doesn't go so well!

It seems to me that the "person" who hires the hall (venue)can make the rules. If politicians want to decide when and where they want to debate and hire the hall, then the mean scheme media can be invited, or not. That the politicians let the mean scheme media boss them around is frightening.

BeForKids February 24th, 2008 4:57 pm

the problem is larger than terms and statistics imply. over there at wiki (subject: literacy) jonathon kosol explains why the numbers for literacy rates are underrepresented (they don't respond to written surveys, they don't have telephones - no bills-, natural distrust of others, grade level doesn't equate to comprehension, doesn't include the homeless).as a society we may have 99% literacy rate, however the rates of functional illiteracy hover around 15-20%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy

"In the United States, according to Business magazine, an estimated 15 million functionally illiterate adults held jobs at the beginning of the 21st century. The American Council of Life Insurers reported that 75% of the Fortune 500 companies provide some level of remedial training for their workers. All over U.S.A. 40-44 million (21-23% of adults) are functionally illiterate."

what is functional illiteracy ?

(same source)

"When illiterate, one cannot read or write at all. In contrast, one who is functionally illiterate has a basic grasp of literacy (reading and writing text in his or her native language), but with a variable degree of grammatical correctness, and style. In short, when confronted with printed materials, functionally illiterate adults cannot function effectively in modern society, and cannot adequately perform fundamental tasks such as filling out an employment application; understanding a legally-binding contract; following written instructions; reading a newspaper article; reading traffic signs; consulting a dictionary; or understanding a bus schedule.Functional illiteracy also severely limits interaction with information and communication technologies (e.g. using a personal computer to work with a word processor, a web browser, a spreadsheet application, or using a mobile phone efficiently)."

in fact being labeled 'functionally literate' doesn't insure comprehensive comprehension of policy or a willingness to examine policy. many prefer sports, entertainment, soma. of the 80-85% who are functionally literate only 50% historically have chosen to register to vote and participate in the process. american culture. the dem party is breaking voter turnout records in every primary/caucus in 2008. those who have ignored the political process are engaging in the process. obama (for many reasons) has contributed significantly to this turnout. if he runs in the general those activated will be more inclined to examine the policy differences between mccain and obama (especially independents who admire both mccain and obama).

the debates in september and october at least should be entertaining, hopefully nader will be included.

remember common sense was read aloud - often in the public square - to those unable to read.

Do we so easily forget?

Its only been 20 years since the Parties' "Commission on Presidential Debates" started mucking things up.

The League of Women Voters ran decent Debates, and still would be running them if the Party hack shennanigans between Bush (the Elder) and Dukakis hadn't sent them away in Disgust.

Change is gonna take a lot more effort on our part beyond "electing" the right Democratic Candidate.

Start thinking about Congress, the whole entire House has to stand for election, remember, that's where the real effort -on the national level- needs to be focused.

Everbody catch up on recent history and get ready to go to work.

-matti

There won't be any real debates before the next president is elected unless Nader somehow is included.

It seems to me that the "person" who hires the hall (venue) can make the rules. If the candidates are not happy with the way things are run they should decide when and where to debate and hire the hall, since the Constitution prohibits any restiction of their freedom of speech rights. Then they can decide whether or not to invite the mean scheme media. That the politicians let the mean scheme media boss them around is frightening.

Thank you iowablackbird. You have quantified a subject I only dared to dance around.

Is there such a thing as "practical illiteracy?" Many people with whom I work don't read and chose not to think. They talk about sports and recipes and seldom debate even the terms of their own employment. The extreme example was a colleague (now retired) who boasted that he had never read a book. And I am an elementary teacher!

Above, Rudyjo says, "There won't be any real debates before the next president is elected unless Nader somehow is included." I agree. As someone who chided a friend for voting "Nader" in the past, (and getting an earful) I agree. But make those debates happen with your friends, relatives, neighbors, and acquaintenances. Don't wait for the Media to do your thinking and discussing.

The problem is that 80% of the population of eligible voters have an IQ between 80 and 120, those at the lower end are, shall we say - not too bright, and those at the upper end, while not stupid, many are either not well educated, especially if they are the product of the public school system, or uninformed/misinformed because they get their news from the CM/MSM. The elderly vote in much greater numbers than the young, and many do not use the internet for information, and have other age related issues........

So this is the targeted audience. Anything too complex and they do not get it. Everything is dumbed down, and the election is treated like a football game. People want to vote for the winner in the primaries, and they tend to vote for the home team in the general election (Democrat or Republican). Some will cross over and vote for the best candidate, but when you get to the general elections, the only 2 choices have both been approved by the elite since they provided the money for the 30 second commercials needed to get there, otherwise they would not be on the ballot. So the choice is Coca Cola or Pepsi, Red or Blue, Black or White, Male or Female.

With McCain, you got the Shultz camp who will control foreign policy, and we will bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, and maybe a wider conflict involving Russia and China. With Obama, you have Brzezinski who will run the foreign policy, and it will be a Cold War II with war in the Balkans that may lead to a wider conflict with Russia and China. Neither will get us out of Iraq, since our oil companies are all set to move in and need protection (provided free of charge by you-the taxpayer, or more correct, your grandchildren - since we have to borrow the money).

Both will deal with the depression heading your way in 2009, and Obama may be more sympathetic to the working class, but neither will go up against the international financial elite who caused it.

Now, Obama may be a wild card. He might wish to try and change things once elected and give his elite backers the finger and be a real President of the People. I like to think so in moments of weakness. But he was given a warning in Dallas recently when the secret service stood down and stopped checking for weapons at one of his events. Message? Remember JFK. Obama is not a stupid man and will remember.

"But he was given a warning in Dallas recently when the secret service stood down and stopped checking for weapons at one of his events. Message? Remember JFK. Obama is not a stupid man and will remember."

MiMiCcs: Proof/citations, please!

Democracy is now a corporate infomercial. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....

Obama, Clinton and McCain are just mass-marketed commodities courtesy of rampant campaign spending.
America desperately needs campaign spending limits, not corporate-backed, corporate-friendly candidates.

skeezyks,

Of all the responses to this article, yours is the only one I read that really goes to the heart of the matter...the organized and systematic "dumbing down" of America. As you so aptly point out, early Americans from every walk of life were not only literate, their voracity for literature, debate and comprehension far exceeded the common perception of our ancestors as simple, country folk. When we talk about the failure of the American education system we hear many common themes: 1) No Child Left Behind has ruined American education, 2) the system doesn't work because teachers are underpaid, 3) education would improve if children started school earlier, attended school longer, attended school year round, had more homework and less free time, are tested more often, are tested less often, are drugged in order to control their behavior, or (most ludicrous of all) if only their parents would get more involved.

None of these explanations for poorly-educated children actually goes to the root of the problem with the American education system. The root of the problem is that the American education system...as a compulsory, government-controlled institution...exists at all. Consider:

"Looking back, abundant data exist from states like Connecticut and Massachusetts to show that by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent wherever such a thing mattered. According to the Connecticut census of 1840, only one citizen out of every 579 was illiterate and you probably don't want to know, not really, what people in those days considered literate; it's too embarrassing. Popular novels of the period give a clue: 'Last of the Mohicans,' published in 1826, sold so well that a contemporary equivalent would have to move 10 million copies to match it. If you pick up an uncut version you find yourself in a dense thicket of philosophy, history, culture, manners, politics, geography, analysis of human motives and actions, all conveyed in data-rich periodic sentences so formidable only a determined and well-educated reader can handle it nowadays. Yet in 1818 we were a small-farm nation without colleges or universities to speak of."

Also...

"In 1882, fifth graders read these authors in their Appleton School Reader: William Shakespeare, Henry Thoreau, George Washington, Sir Walter Scott, Mark Twain, Benjamin Franklin, Oliver Wendell Holmes, John Bunyan, Daniel Webster, Samuel Johnson, Lewis Carroll, Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and others like them."

And then consider...

"Between 1896 and 1920, a small group of industrialists and financiers, together with their private charitable foundations, subsidized university chairs, university researchers, and school administrators, and spent more money on forced schooling than the government itself did. Carnegie and Rockefeller, as late as 1915, were spending more themselves. In this laissez-faire fashion a system of modern schooling was constructed without public participation. The motives for this are undoubtedly mixed, but it will be useful for you to hear a few excerpts from the first mission statement of Rockefeller's General Education Board as they occur in a document called Occasional Letter Number One (1906):

'In our dreams...people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple...we will organize children...and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.'

This mission statement will reward multiple rereadings."

I would submit that the "dumbing down" of American political debate is merely a reflection of the complex, social de-educating of the American population that found its most potent expression in the compulsory education system. Although still under the constraints of government-dictated rules and curriculum, the growing movement toward home schooling, charter schools and school voucher programs indicates that Americans are beginning to resist the idea that educating children is a task best left to the "experts."

Thanks for the keen observations!

Gatto, J.T. (2001). The underground history of American education. [Electronic version]. Retrieved from: http://www.rit.edu/~cma8660/mirror/www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm

(Follow the link above to find the book in its entirety online)

iowablackbird, thank you, I found that 99% number unbelievable.

skeezyks, regarding your peers teaching our children, scary. Regarding the security lapse at the Obama rally, I can't find the link to the original Fort Worth Star-Telegram story, but did find a link that references it. The corporate media ignored the story. You can Google about the lapse and get pages of references, and somewhere down the line, the original story might appear. The Dallas police were reported to be upset about the lapse, but said they were ordered by the Secret Service to stop their weapons check an hour before the event. The Secret Service has no comment. Some see it as a coded warning to Obama not to be too anti-establishment (JFK and RFK, who were both assassinated during security stand downs). Here's one reference:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2990.shtml

kathyodat

"Presumed frontrunner Barack Obama does himself a disservice when he accuses Ralph Nader of having an inflated ego for presuming to enlarge the debate by entering into it.

I had thought better of him."

Agreed. Rub off the gilt and he's just another politician. It's shameful to see so many US left wingers (but then, the Dems are a business party, not left wing at all) slander and mock the only left wing candidates they have (Kuicinch and others are in the same boat).

Just why is the US so conformist, so reluctant to change, to in love with its own enslavement to capitalism?

I saw Barbara Jordan speak in 1989. It was either her last public speaking appearance or else pretty close. Her oratory was a beautiful thing for the clarity of thought that she delivered.

Today's candidates are hacks. Obama's glittering generalities are the best of the pack, but they stand out only because of the stultifying garbage that the others practice.

Dumbing down the discourse and then pandering to it leads to an endless cycle. When the polity has the attention span of a fruit fly and the cognitive skills of a golf bag, how long before "LOL" enters the political lexicon as some kind of profundity?

"I'm surprised by the lack of protests when the "lesser" candidates are shut out of the debates"

Why would you be surprised? By then MSM has already got most of the country believing that haven't got a chance anyway. It's absolutely amazing to watch. What's even more amazing to me is most every body I know believes that the MSM is corrupt but they still set back and believe every word of it. That's why we still have people who think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, possessed weapons of mass destruction and was in the process of building a nuclear bomb. What's even more amazing to me, after all this time, many Americans still doesn't believe that the Israeli government is nothing more than a terrorist group.

So I don't understand why you are surprised by the lack of protest.

grumpyoldlady
I'd forgotten how it used to be. This is the kind of information that should be going out in all those fw:fwds people send off to everyone in their address books instead of the stupid jokes and other idiotic stuff. (A good example of our dumbed down society). Thanks for posting it.

I'm not inspired by Obama at all. I think a better word to describe what I feel when I hear him speak is "dismayed".

Is this really what passes for charisma in our country? Is this really the best we can get?

I think I'll just scribble "Warren Buffet" on my ballot this year. I'm sick of picking the lesser of two weasels.

rickster469

I'm not really surprised. There's very little that does surprise me any more. I hear and see the idiocy from what little television I watch, and from the few conversations I have with people any more. I think I keep coming back to CD because except for myself, it's got so many sane people who come here.

wilmoor I didn't think you really were surprised. That's one of the problems with growing older and wiser there's not much that surprises you anymore. My children are often amazed about how I know what their going to say or do before they say it or do it. They just don't seem to understand the fact that I've been there and done that. When I was their age I was just as amazed as they are with my parents ability to do that.

I keep coming back to CD just to read the range of views from different people. Makes me remember the days when I was young a dumb and most people thought that hope was all we needed. That may be the biggest problem with most parents now days. They teach and encourage hope but they don't teach that hope without a definitive plan is doomed to failure.

That's the problem with debates these days. You hear a lot of talk about hope and change but none of them is offering any new/different plans to get there. When we do get the people who do offer some thing new they don't even get the chance to finish the race.

grumpyoldlady: Thank you. Your post is quite an eye-opener. And thank you, other posters for avoiding ab hominem attacks for my poor grammar.

Once again, Nader will furnish the critique and ask the hard questions no one else will address in any comprehensive way.