Written by Andrew Schwartz
The Republican Party has made an obvious transformation over the past half-century. What was once characterized by its business and defense-oriented—yet agreeably moderate—positions, the GOP has gradually shifted further to the right, united in recent decades by a suspicion of government, loyalty to conservative fiscal policies, and driven by a passionate faith. Just in the past couple months of the 2016 election, however, the party has taken an even sharper turn, this time in a direction of absolute ridiculousness.
The most recent GOP presidential debates have come to resemble less a debate amongst contenders for the White House than it has the scenario wherein a group of belligerent middle-school boys are left alone in a room unsupervised. That is, they both represent a situation of infantile behavior, blatant insecurities masked by false self-entitlement and lots of yelling, and finally, a series of regrettable words and actions. I can only picture Wolf Blitzer in both scenarios, scrambling helplessly in an effort to mediate.
I must admit, the GOP presidential primary has been relatively easy to joke about. In fact, to the extent that I find myself getting noticeably giddy about watching an otherwise painful display, these debates have provoked nothing but playful headshaking and laughter. However, once I was able to step back and really assess all that is at stake in this primary—countless socioeconomic programs on the verge of being cut, the likeliness of further American military involvement in the Middle East, and a potential Supreme Court nomination—the vulgarity and absurdity of this election has become a hell of a lot less funny. The fact that a guy like Donald Trump has taken such a commanding lead in the Republican primary election—to the extent that tea-party hard-liners like Rubio and Cruz are even considered by some to be moderate alternatives—makes this entire situation anything but humorous.
Conservatives across the country have referred to this past primary debate in Houston—which featured attacks on hand size, tacky neckties, excessive perspiration, and finally, The Celebrity Apprentice—as a disgrace to the party. Chris Wallace, the Fox News anchor and GOP loyalist, was among those alienated. “It was an embarrassment for the Republican Party. […] If you saw someone acting presidentially on that stage, you got better eyesight than I do,” Wallace said while discussing the candidates’ debate antics on the O’Reilly Factor. When you see Chris Wallace attacking the potential nominees of his own party, you know this is serious. Today’s Republican Party seems to embody the harmful consequences of when a party selectively breeds for a candidate, who with a humble amount of money and the support of dissatisfied voters, has the potential to become too tenacious for the party’s control. The behavior of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in last Thursday’s debate showcased perhaps what it will take to topple what The Washington Post has called “the most successful demagogue-charlatan in the history of U.S. politics.”
I completely understand why nationwide viewing of the GOP debate has spiked so drastically in recent months. Candidates like Trump are unpredictable and exciting, unlike their dry, mundane, Bob Dole-esque predecessors. It should be clear, however, that these debates are entertaining for all the wrong reasons. Debates in the past were purely substantive, and even when there was an attack made, it was based on merit and completely justified (most notably, Lloyd Bentsen’s “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy” directed at Dan Quayle during the 1988 United States vice-presidential debate.)
A debate amongst contenders for the White House should be conducted in a manner that displays charisma, a clear vision for this country, and willingness to compromise along party lines. The most recent debates, which, according to the New York Times, have been “less talk of ideas and more slurs about sweat and ties,” have featured little to none of that.
It has become apparent, however, that the more controversial and provocative things are said on stage by the GOP candidates, the more support they get from their ideological bases. And with this taken into consideration, the crude and belligerent (d)evolution of these debates, campaign speeches, and attack advertisements reflects more poorly on the American people than it does these candidates. The most recent GOP debate was Thursday night, and people in homes all across America were fed another crude, reality-television like display. I implore any readers, however, to refrain from even giving them attention. We owe that to ourselves.