Debates? Honest or memorized?
Lincoln-Douglas debates were viewed as the ideal democratic debate between two opposing parties in a nonpartisan environment where each debater could express their own opinion without being interrupted. However, when reviewing political debates in the modern day it is easy to see how not only the subjects of debate but the debate itself has changed.
Debate no longer has it’s beautiful shine and unyielding luster of truth. But instead is a collection of 30 second memorized answers that any given candidate can spit out when they are asked basic questions. This does not hold true to the idea of debate or the foundation of democracy that our fair country rests on. Democracy can survive only if the candidates can give the public honest and maybe even blunt answers to the hardest questions. Modern day debates seem to be lacking the honestly once bestowed upon them because behind our candidates rushed answers sits a campaign manager and a sheet of paper reminding them how to relate to the public.
If a candidate can’t honestly relate to the public and can’t accurately describe their opinions to even the most dreaded questions how can we expect them to rule our country without corruption and hold up the ever shifting ideals of democracy?