I, along with a significant chunk of Princeton’s student body, sat down to watch the first presidential debate in Richardson Auditorium last week. Watching the debate in this setting created a communal feeling. People reacted together, hissing and clapping as if on cue.
This started early on in the debate - the second Donald Trump walked on stage, what seemed like the entire auditorium burst into laughter. The same energy continued throughout; unlike the live audience, who were admonished not to react to the candidates, we registered our amusement, support, and contempt throughout the debate.
To some extent, it even seemed like the candidates themselves were mugging for just such a crowd, whether it was Clinton smirking and throwing out prepared hashtags, or Trump making faces and interrupting his opponent.
As I watched the debate, reacting just as noisily as everyone else, it dawned on me that we were watching the debate as entertainment. Despite the unfortunate fact that one of the two persons on stage will become our commander in chief, none of us were taking the process seriously.
Maybe this levity is a result of the fact that the Republican nominee is a reality TV star, or maybe it is because of the slow transformation of American news agencies into entertainment programs. Maybe it is because we are a generation raised on news-comedy shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Maybe it is because of the internet and next day listicles highlighting the candidates’ catchiest put-downs.
Personally, my own desire to see the debate as comedy stems from a combination of my horror at the despicable suggestions put forward by Trump and the awful realization that I’ll have to hold my nose and vote for Clinton, despite my strong dislike for her.Perhaps others are also distancing themselves from a two-party system that does not represent them by regarding the whole thing as a massive joke. Simply put, we wish it were.
Whatever the reason is for the transformation of the presidential debate into a particularly tense episode of The Bachelor, we must consider the potential effects of this method of approaching politics. In the first place, it must necessarily increase the divide between voters on either end of the spectrum. It encourages voters to laugh at the other side’s choice and to view him or her as a ludicrous option. Less directly, it encourages the candidates themselves to insult and mock their opponents, both on the debating stage and elsewhere, because firstly, they would like to play into their supporters’ expectations and secondly, they would like to be good entertainment. In fact, this debate was the most watched – ever.
This trend is absolutely dangerous. If politicians think that the way to our hearts is to be more interesting or more entertaining, then they have less incentive to try to propose plans which are effective or at least internally coherent. We must expect more from our politicians than we do from our reality TV stars.
This election season, we have already seen what can happen when we do not take politicians seriously. Last year, as the primary season began, I, like many other Americans, enjoyed laughing at Donald Trump’s presumptuous run for president. With his ridiculousness and total lack of qualifications, he seemed like a harmless sideshow. However, so many laughs and so much derision later, he is one step away from the White House. The media fascination with him, which gave him so much free commercial time, undoubtedly helped him get to this point. Our desire to make fun of Trump obviously fueled his prominent position on our televisions.
From now on, let us try to do the impossible. Let us watch debates and speeches and try to extract meaning from the sea of catchphrases and bluster. Let us spend as much time as possible critically examining candidates’ plans. Let us take the initiative to examine different perspectives on their thoughts and platforms.
It is our future at stake.
Zeena Mubarak is a Near Eastern Studies major from Fairfax, Va. She can be reached at zmubarak@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton must move towards a world-changing curriculum
Luqmaan Bamba“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
Statement of solidarity with Columbia University students from Princeton faculty and staff
Guest ContributorsIn an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
In an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
Princetonians want political change. Why don’t more of us take action?
Frances Brogan“Understanding that this is how activism works — collectively — can empower people to go to protests and meetings because it undermines the stereotype that being an “activist” is an undesirable individual identity and the misconception that only people with that “identity” label can contribute.”
“Understanding that this is how activism works — collectively — can empower people to go to protests and meetings because it undermines the stereotype that being an “activist” is an undesirable individual identity and the misconception that only people with that “identity” label can contribute.”
