We’re mere hours away from Wednesday night’s debate. For the
past several days, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have withdrawn
from the campaign trail to busily cram for this long-awaited
political showdown. Behind the scenes, top strategists on both
sides of the coin have been sharpening their knives, while
jabbering pundits hype the potential of “game change.”
What’s at stake under the big top in Denver is obvious. The
president is anxious to make his case for another four years. The
challenger is trying to undermine that claim. Both will have been
briefed extensively, and the “outcome” will likely hinge on a
knock-out gibe or a memorable gaffe.
The impact of this discussion may even nudge one candidate’s
numbers at the other’s expense.
But let’s face it: as John Sides
writes for the Washington Monthly, these debates tend
to attract partisan viewership who are already committed to their
candidate. Voters may learn new information, but it’s unlikely that
either fellow is going to change many minds. For all the
memorable moments, most
serious scholarship tells us that presidential debates have a
“fragile” effect on the ultimate outcome of the election.
But Wednesday night offers another conversation you might find
compelling. I’m talking about a discussion between an emerging
champion of traditional conservatism and a liberal huckster who’s
literally made a joke of American politics.
That right. Senator Rand Paul is appearing on The Daily
Show to face-off against the left’s leading harlequin, Jon
Stewart. In an odd way, what’s happening on Comedy Central might
tell us a lot more about the future of political discourse in
America than Wednesday night’s presidential debate.
Consider the numbers. Judging by the
Nielsen ratings from the 2008 debates, we can anticipate that
that the median age of viewership for the televised face-off
between Romney and Obama will be planted firmly in the mid-fifties.
Far from the army of “stoned slackers” and “dopey kids”
skewered by Bill O’Reilly, the median age of Stewart’s audience
has grayed to 41 years young, but remains buoyed by a legion of
civil libertarian-minded youngsters who are increasingly
disaffected with the major parties’ boilerplate.
There’s also a body of academic research out there that suggests
satirical programs like The Daily Show drive down support
for inaccessible political institutions and calcified party
leadership among a cynical mass of our nation’s youth (see,
Baumgartner,
2006).
Allow me to “add context and stir.”
Writing for Forbes back in May, political pollster John
Zogby
surveyed a libertarian-leaning movement among young Americans.
As if to sum up the stats in twenty-five words or less, JZ wrote
youth politics had shifted stream from “Obama-or-bust” towards an
attitude of…
“Live and let live. Individual responsibility is as
important as collective responsibility. Avoid military
interventions. Distrust both government and corporations. Protect
civil liberties.”
That this political zeitgeist is directly attributed to
a certain 77 year-old from Texas’s 14th Congressional
District is obvious.
Of course, that torch has been passed. Which is precisely why
Rand Paul probably has the opportunity to change more minds on
Wednesday night than his primetime competition.
