Seeking A Balance

Source: New York Times

We have to wonder just how well we are served as a nation by the "atmospherics" and tone of the presidential and vice-presidential debates taking place at the moment.  Featuring the picture on the left of this posting, the New York Times website carried the headline,"Rivals Bring Bare Fists to Rematch," to describe the second presidential debate, which took place on Tuesday evening, October 16th.

On the one hand, it may well be that these debates test the mettle of the candidates in an important way.  They have to think under pressure.  They have to demonstrate resolve.  They have to employ the rhetorical skills that are a modern-day requirement of the presidency.  They have to show that they know what they are talking about—or, at least, sound like they know what they're talking about.

But...really...are we looking for a president who is skilled in interrupting, finger pointing, and other rude behaviors of a kind that we did our best to discipline out of our children?  Do we want a president who is praised or criticized not so much for the points he makes as the demeanor or lack of demeanor with which he makes them?  Is it in our national best interest to elect the candidate most skillful at gotcha politics?  Both candidates are men of private faith.  At various times, they have given testimony to the importance of their faith to the way they govern as well as the way they live.  The president is a mainline Protestant.  Mr. Romney is a Mormon.  Where do our churches. mainline or Mormon, teach a gospel that encourages the kind of behaviors we see in these debates?  Where does it teach one to be dismissive of the moderator and condescending to the other candidate?  Now, I'm sure that both men are indeed men of faith.  I hope it at least bothers them that they both have to behave in ways that simply do not reflect the best teachings of their churches.  It should bother the rest of us, Protestants or Mormons.

Romney won the first debate because he projected more of a tough-guy attitude than did the president.  The president won this second one, if in a less dominating performance, because he "brought his A game" to the arena.  So, are we electing a president or a gladiator-in-chief?  The media wants the latter, of course, because gladiatorial spectacles make news, which is good for the bottom line.  Apparently, the public also takes some delight in these battles.  I don't think we should.  To the extent that we do enjoy of this kind of debate, we fail to reflect our better natures.  It is possible to envision 90 minutes of dialogue and reflection in which the two candidates outline their own goals and policies and engage in a deeper, more civil discussion of their differences without the alpha male antics.  That, at least, is the direction our faiths encourage us to explore.