America: A Debate-Free Zone

Political debate in America is hopelessly deadlocked. In Congress as well as in the media, there’s no forum where opponents can exchange arguments.

Americans love to argue. Every student learns how to structure his or her point of view clearly and confidently. People on the street never shy away from the reporter’s or pollster’s microphone and the internet is overflowing with blogs on every conceivable subject. But there is one area of public life where civilized disagreement remains taboo: politics. In Washington, arguments are only made to those who already hold that same point of view. Opponents are vilified before they can open their mouths. One might also say that argument in American politics has come to a standstill. The health care summit, to which President Obama invited his Republican opponents last Thursday, was his attempt to overcome that standstill. For Americans, it was a rare opportunity to see how politicians exchange views, live on television — and to witness how, after seven hours, they achieve no results.

The debate mainly showed how deep the chasms were between both sides. Republicans mercilessly rejected Obama’s appeal to seek commonalities. Democrats had already decided prior to the summit to force their reform package through Congress without Republican support.

Americans Are Tired of Trench Warfare

It may be the nature of the parliamentary system that an administration tries to enact its agenda and the opposition seeks to block it. But nowhere are the politicians so divided as they are in the United States.

Of all the goals Obama set for himself, he failed most spectacularly with his goal of bipartisanship, exactly the thing that was so popular with the public. Americans were tired of political trench warfare; independents were especially relieved to hear Obama’s campaign promise to seek bipartisanship. But things have never been as bad as this before and Obama carries partial responsibility for that. He not only misjudged the structural causes of the permanent blockade, he actually strengthened those causes with his own behavior.

The structural causes lie in the American system, a system designed for polarization. The two-party system, in which either one side or the other is in power, excludes nuances from other sources. And since the ideological differences of the civil rights movement at the very latest, American society has split into two halves: Democratic blue, Republican red.

Congress also grants the opposition the tools to make life a living hell for the party in power. The ultimate weapon in this cold war is the filibuster. The opposition can endlessly prolong legislative debate unless the other side can muster a super-majority of 60 votes to end the log-jam. Such a majority is difficult for even a majority party to reach, as Obama discovered when he tried to pass his health care reform bill.

The American media also functions as a hindrance to debate. There are few formats in which politicians have to defend their positions. American mainstream television has no Anne Will or Maybrit Ilner* inviting political big shots into the studio to debate, the goal being “may the best argument win.” The American media recently talked of a “duel” between former Vice President Dick Cheney and his successor, Joe Biden, who had publicly traded accusations on the subject of combating terrorism. In fact, the “duel” consisted of both men giving separate interviews, in which they attacked one another. At the conclusion, it was left up to network commentators to determine a winner. That’s awkward because the world of American cable television is divided into the same two halves as Congress. Red America watches Fox News, blue America watches MSNBC.

One Voice is Not Enough

Obama can’t do much about that, but he has missed an opportunity to change things. He travels across the country in campaign mode, giving speeches and long-winded interviews. These are lectures, not arguments; he also avoids press conferences more than any of his predecessors. The health care summit finally gave him an opportunity to confront the disagreement, but the weapons weren’t distributed fairly. The president made it clear that he saw himself playing a special role; he gave himself the lion’s share of the speaking time and reserved the final word for himself. Such theatrics are no replacement for a real and continuing discussion. If Obama really wants to break through the ideological gridlock, he needs to set a good example himself. He should be sending his cabinet leaders and advisers into the television studios to defend his policies. It’s not healthy to hear only the president’s voice on as important an issue as health care reform. Obama needs to climb down from the podium more often and not just speak to the public; he needs to give answers as well.

* Translator’s Note: Anne Will and Maybrit Ilner regularly host live debates between politicians on Germany’s two major television networks, ARD and ZDF.