Primaries

“Gaffes” and “Brainfarts” seem to have become the watchwords of recent weeks in this primary season as Republican hopefuls like Herman Cain fumbled questions on current foreign policy issues and Rick Perry “locked up” during nationally televised debate.

Within the context of the ongoing primary, critical thinking tools can be trained on any of the individual candidates, subjecting various tax plans (for example) to a review to see if premises lead to conclusions, unpacking the rhetoric of individual candidate’s opening and closing debate speeches (or, perhaps, applying the Principle of Charity to even those candidates who embarrass themselves on national television).

Alternatively, one could look beyond the rhetoric, clashes and slip-ups that have gone on over the last several months and realize that the Primary itself has an ultimate essence: to winnow a large group of candidates down to just one. In which case (and regardless of the details) the institution of the Primary is (so far, anyway) adhering perfectly to its nature.

Given non-stop coverage of the campaign, it’s particularly tempting to focus attention on the sources of our premises: the media which today consists of partisan and non-partisan newspapers, radio stations, television and cable news networks, some of whom make attempts at objectivity while others proudly proclaim their biases (or hide them behind claims of balance and fairness). With the advent of the Internet, pocket video cameras and stalkers hoping to create media events by capturing a candidate in a blunder (such as a “makaka moment,”) the media becoming the message will certainly occupy an important place in this discussion over the coming year.

But for now, I’d like to focus on one player in the Primary equation that may not be getting the media exposure of the candidates: ourselves.

After all, it is we who react to this or that Primary gaffe or misstatement, often through the partisan lens of forgiveness if we lean Republican or ridicule if we lean Democrat. But stop and consider for a moment how any of us might react if one of the candidates (in either party) took a long pause after being asked a question about a particularly complex matter, looked up and said “You know, that’s a very good question about a very difficult and fast-changing subject. And I would be doing everyone a disservice if I spoke about it without having learned enough to speak intelligently. Let me spend some time reading up on the matter and consulting with those who know more than I do, after which I’ll give it some careful thought and present you an answer worthy of that name (with appropriate qualification of what I and any of us still might not know).”

Such a response (which is what we hope to hear from someone who may not have all the answers on any conceivable subject, which is all of us) would immediately end a Presidential candidate’s career, branding him with such death-dealing epitaphs of wishy-washy, egg-heady or the dreaded indecisive.

But the alternative to such a public demonstration of critical thinking is not becoming omniscient and immediately decisive on all matters (including issues with unfolding unknowns). Rather, it is to give the appearance of knowing enough to have a say on any issue of the day, an appearance often gained not by careful thought and study, but mastery of certain rhetorical techniques, frequently achieved through professional training on skills such as how to perform on television, how to interact with (and play to) audiences during debates and interviews, and so on.

And remember that the audience these speakers are playing to is us, a public that would react with hostility to someone admitting that they may not know something (or may not know enough to make an immediate decision), preferring the appearance of knowledge and wisdom that we simultaneously know most likely lacks substance. And to highlight one last irony, we actually want our leaders to be careful and thoughtful after they are elected; to surround themselves with experts and perform considered analysis before making hard decisions. It is only before they are elected that we demand immediate answers and demonstrations of on-the-spot decision-making (often on murky or even trivial matters).

So the next time we feel the urge to react smugly to a gaffe by a politician we oppose, or excuse an onscreen error by someone we support, it might be worth considering what role we play in a system that rewards those who can convince us that they are someone they are not, able to deliver something we may not necessarily even want once the election is over.