The Republican debates of 2011 are an enthralling spectacle. This year, more than any other year I can remember, a distinct lack of personality has hung like a cloud over the candidates and the entire proceedings. A person sitting at home watching these debates on television, might think they are privy to only the views of the eight or nine Republican candidates present, but they are wrong. The most powerful personality in the room through all these debates is the audience.
Through simple boos and cheers, the audience at these debates expresses an overwhelming opinion that, despite the timing of these reactions, is dangerously persuasive. From the most recent booing of gay soldier Stephen Hill who prompted his question to the candidates from his current post in Iraq, to the cheering of letting a hypothetical man die due to lack of health insurance, the audience has made its presence known loudly and shamelessly selfish.
Although these reactions could be a means for a candidate to directly address radically conservative views, the candidates instead choose to ignore the audience until after the debate when, more often than not, they refer to the commotion as “unfortunate.”
While Republican candidate Rick Santorum promised to reinstate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after Hill’s question, no mention was made of the audience’s jeers. And no mention is ever made, leaving a dangerous viewpoint unaddressed and to be interpreted only by the viewers at home.
These debates come with no disclaimers saying that the audience is to be ignored or that it is made up of primarily radical conservatives. And because the sound effects are not addressed, they hang in the air, more persuasive than they are given credit for.
GOP presidential candidate debates are meant to educate; they exist in order for voters to come as close as they can to actually knowing the candidates. They should be addressed like a careful scientific experiment, wherein all factors are controlled, except for the variables: the candidates. Such an exact science is impossible with biased media coverage and moderators, but the audience adds a whole new variable to the equation that many viewers are unsure of how to deal with.
The audience sways the arguments before a case is even made. The level of cheering decides who the most popular candidates are. The booing after questions decides the answer before one is given. Applause after a suggested policy change determines if that policy will be passed under a Republican president.
But these reactions are misleading. The audience of a GOP debate is a small and underrepresented sample of Republican voters. Even the overenthusiastic cheers and jeers are only a small portion of the audience watching the GOP debates, but volume is key, and the louder audiences cheer, the larger they seem.
At the NBC debate in California this month, mention of Rick Perry’s criminal execution record of 234 prisoners was met with applause before Perry even opened his mouth to comment on it. This reaction highlights how important issues are being dangerously trivialized into one-sided arguments based not on fact, but on feeling. The audience is not applauding punishment of dangerous criminals — it’s applauding death in general. The audience is not booing the repeal of DADT with its reaction to Stephen Hill — it’s booing an entire group of people because of their sexual orientation. It sets the wider audience, those watching either on TV or sitting alongside the cheerers, on a biased slant, wherein they assume a majority of Republicans agree with the audience’s simplistic views. The candidates, in ignoring the audience, facilitate this misconception.
And no matter how educated a viewer is, the cheers and jeers can sway anyone, even without the viewer realizing it. Therein lies the danger of such a boisterous audience — all issues deserve close attention and a clear mind to assess a candidate’s response, and an audience’s partisan and fervent views make that unfairly difficult.
My advice is this: Consider following the debates online in text form. Or, while watching the debates, attempt to tune out the audience. At the same time, however, be aware at all times that the audience is a variable that cannot be controlled and should not represent a larger majority or sway the viewer’s opinions. The audience may not stand for the candidate it cheers for loudest or determine the top priorities of a hypothetical Republican presidency.
Bouchat: Live audiences at Republican debates threaten free thought
Daily Emerald
September 23, 2011
0
More to Discover