On Feb. 6, CNN aired a town hall debate between Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Ted Cruz ’92 on the merits and drawbacks of the Affordable Care Act. Neither man is in the midst of a campaign for political office. The two senators took the stage in front of an audience and millions of home viewers simply to debate their views on Obamacare, to engage in a direct forum with one another, and to have a conversation.
CNN’s debate between Sanders and Cruz brought back something that I thought we had lost: respectful, substantive debate based on truth, defined ideology, and clear arguments. Now more than ever, debates of this nature are needed to educate the American people amidst turbulent confusion.
Debates of this sort are non-existent in the sphere of our current media. Generally, the only proper debates aired on TV nowadays are related to the presidential campaign. These events — involving either party hopefuls for the nomination, presidential candidates, or vice-presidential candidates — are drowned in the frenzy of the election cycle. Sound arguments about policy and reform are dropped for catchy sound bites and searing one-liners. We lose sight of substance, caring more for the candidates’ dramatic performance than their arguments. This held especially true in the 2016 presidential race, when the press paid more attention to Trump’s outbursts than to the nature of Clinton’s core messages.
Worse, our current administration seems to have no devotion to fact. President Trump, Kellyanne Conway, and Press Secretary Sean Spicer have promoted an alarming number of “alternative facts,” including the size of the President’s inauguration crowds, the existence of mass voter fraud, the spread of “fake news” by mass media outlets, and the claim of a Bowling Green Massacre by Muslims in America.
This departure from truth is paired by a rhetoric and conduct from the President and his administration that places pride, braggadocio, ignorance, and dominance above etiquette, respect, and grace. Meanwhile, the standards of pure, truthful debate have been replaced by Twitter wars, something that we expect of celebrities, pop-stars, or TV personalities. Not the President.
That’s why the Sanders-Cruz CNN debate was remarkable. It hearkens back to the seminal televised debates between William F. Buckley Jr. and Gore Vidal during the 1968 Republican and Democratic conventions that established the precedent for debate between two forces diametrically opposed to each other.
Such debate doesn’t have to be an issue of partisanship; it doesn’t have to divide its viewership based on political party lines as much the media tends to do. The substantial dialogue of inter-party debates benefits both sides. When each side checks the other in public forum, everybody progresses and matures.
This type of debate shifts our focus back to the essence of a good argument: the ideas, the issues, and the fundamental truths of the situation. And it presents these tenets gracefully. We don’t view the participants as two opponents duking it out to claim victory over the other, but rather two individuals sharing, listening, and responding constructively. During CNN’s debate, Sanders and Cruz maintained a rapport and decorum that shifted our attention to the issues to which they so eloquently devoted their efforts.
In an ideal world, this discourse would occur in the chambers of the Senate and the House of Representatives. We can only have hope — albeit idealistic and lofty — that our government will function on such standards of ideological discourse. Politics too often assumes the reputation of the cutthroat, the cold, and the devious. But by an intense dedication to meaningful debate and graceful conversation, Washington can preserve humanity, morality, dignity, and an impassioned love for the people it serves.
Read More
Progressives failed a lesson in free speech
Anais Mobarak“The recent controversy surrounding Charter Club has demonstrated that progressive voices on campus have failed to recognize the value of free speech beyond its usefulness as a political instrument. Thus, as a community, we must work to foster an ideologically-free understanding of free speech.”
“The recent controversy surrounding Charter Club has demonstrated that progressive voices on campus have failed to recognize the value of free speech beyond its usefulness as a political instrument. Thus, as a community, we must work to foster an ideologically-free understanding of free speech.”
Campus through a lens: Announcing the ‘Prince’s inaugural columnists
Eleanor Clemans-CopeReading a series of columns by the same author is seeing things through the writer’s lens — it’s looking at campus through the ‘Christofer glasses’ or the ‘Eleanor specs.’ This is the thinking behind having named columns.
Reading a series of columns by the same author is seeing things through the writer’s lens — it’s looking at campus through the ‘Christofer glasses’ or the ‘Eleanor specs.’ This is the thinking behind having named columns.
Bring back the course packet
Abigail Rabieh“With the recent news that Labyrinth Books will no longer supply the coursebooks for Princeton classes, we are facing a new era in which all readings will only be accessible by some digital medium, whether that be via Course Reserves or online ordering from faraway publishers. While some may see this as a step in the right direction of modernity, the increasing digitalization of our scholarship hurts our learning.”
“With the recent news that Labyrinth Books will no longer supply the coursebooks for Princeton classes, we are facing a new era in which all readings will only be accessible by some digital medium, whether that be via Course Reserves or online ordering from faraway publishers. While some may see this as a step in the right direction of modernity, the increasing digitalization of our scholarship hurts our learning.”
