On Not Watching the Non-Debates

Susie Linfield writes:

This is certainly not the ugliest presidential campaign of recent times (think 1960, '68 and '72). Nor are Gore and Bush particularly ugly as American political characters go (think LBJ, Nixon, Reagan) or even particularly spineless (think Hubert Humphrey). Why, then, is a lifelong political junkie such as myself (I cast my first straw vote in 1960 when, to spite my sister, I "endorsed" Nixon) completely unable not just to watch the debates, but to even read the election "coverage" in the papers?

The answer, I think, has to do with the shrunken nature of American political discourse, which has reached its apex — or nadir — in this campaign. Indeed, with this election, I believe the American political system can, indeed must, drop the pretense that it is a "democracy" in the historic sense of the word. No, no, I don't think we've become a fascist state, I'm not about to start spelling "Amerika" with a "k," and I realize that Americans are still the beneficiaries, and defenders, of many essential and wonderful freedoms.

But this campaign makes clear, to longtime political addicts and casual observers alike, the astonishing extent to which political debate in this country has shrivelled, perhaps irrevocably (though I hope not) — and at a certain point quantity does, indeed, become quality. To the extent that democracy entails, indeed demands, a real argument over human values; a real debate over the creation and distribution of social wealth; and a real struggle between classes — to that extent, which is really a very large extent, Americans no longer live in a functioning democracy at all. We seem to be developing some weird mutant system (Tom Frank recently dubbed it "market populism"), which retains formal vestiges of traditional democracies, but without their living, breathing content.

I am not shocked that neither party has put forth a candidate who represents my interests. I am not shocked that the most pressing problem we face, and will continue to face — i.e. the relationship between the astronomical levels of capital accumulation among a privileged few here versus the increasing immiseration of huge portions of the global populace — has been completely ignored. (So much for leadership.) I am not shocked that Bush and Gore both lie.

What stops me is the way that, in order be part of "the process," in order to "be counted," in order to be "good Americans,"we are asked to participate in the candidates' evasions and lies. We are asked to pretend that we do not know the difference between the sterile performance and the passion play; to pretend that a true contest between world views and visions and interests is being fought; to pretend that we cannot distinguish the hollow sham (with its obsessive regard for appearances and its terror of spontaneity) from the vital living thing (which thrives on change, challenge, honesty and contradiction). To be counted, we must discount all that we know to be true; to "make a difference," we must take part in a ritual whose aim is to ensure that no difference is made.

So while I am not shocked that Bush and Gore lie to me, I do draw the line at being asked to lie to myself. Democracy should demand difficult choices, not self-betrayal.

- Susie Linfield is a book critic for the Los Angeles Times and teaches in the Cultural Reporting and Criticism program at New York University's Department of Journalism.