LIBERADIO(!)

Tonight I had the privilege to participate as an invited guest in two events at Belmont’s Seventh Annual Humanities Symposium, with the theme of Debate, Dissent & Dialogue (named in anticipation of Belmont’s having been selected as a site for one of this year’s presidential debates).

The first event was a panel discussion, in which my co-panelists were Rep. Beth Harwell, Larry Woods, and Eric Stansell. I knew all three pretty well, having challenged Rep. Harwell for her seat (unsuccessfully) in 2002, having befriended Larry’s son Allen years ago when we worked a summer job together, and having followed closely Eric Stansell’s campaign–reminding me very much of my own–against Mike Stewart to succeed Rob Briley.

The panel was challenged to offer responses to the following questions:

1. What exactly does it look like to have debate and dissent on local issues?
2. Where are some local forums for debate?
3. How have you seen debate/dissent change over the years?
4. How did your educational life prepare you for “on the job” debate/dissent?
5. What impact have web technologies had on local debates?
6. How does disagreement and dissent affect relationships?

We probably most thoroughly addressed item 4, with some attention given to items 1, 2, and 3. We didn’t have time to cover the final two, based on the flow of the conversation.

Three of us on the panel had run for public office, one was a current officeholder, and one was a frequent campaign adviser, and there was some very interesting discussion of the process of politics. Much of the discussion focused on the pernicious influence of money in politics, with Rep. Harwell surprising me (and probably others in the room) by supporting some form of public financing of elections. “I’m a Republican. I believe you should be able to be as successful and wealthy as you possibly can be. To buy all the homes and widgets you could want. But you shouldn’t be able to buy a politician.” She talked about how she was safe in her seat for as long as she wanted to be because of her “war chest” and ability to raise money quickly. She railed against recent Supreme Court decisions that have curtailed some of the meaningful elements of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform and suggested that campaign contributions are not a right granted by the 1st amendment. I was surprised both by her departure from her party’s orthodoxy and by the amount of attention she gave the issue, including leaving early to go to a Common Cause discussion at Vanderbilt.

I was similarly surprised by Larry Woods’s later omission that he did not support public financing of elections, arguing that then you get “neonazis” running for office with his tax dollars. So, Eric Stansell, Beth Harwell, and I wound up on the opposite side of the issue from Larry Woods.

I put an emphasis on local politics, where the influence of money is a little less pernicious, and the opportunities for politically-minded activists are greater, even if they can’t win elected office.

Most of the panel participants expressed a pretty cynical outlook on the political process. Larry and Beth both talked about the efficacy and necessity (for a winning candidate) of negative advertising. Their take was somewhat different from the one we’ve heard from John Geer, who suggests that negative campaigning can have the positive impact of letting us know information about candidates we wouldn’t necessarily learn in all-positive campaigns. Beth and Larry suggested that it happens because it works. I think we could’ve continued to explore this issue, including where or whether any lines of propriety should be drawn.

I asked Eric to describe the process of attempting to distinguish oneself in a mostly positive race where two candidates are competing for the brand of “progressive Democrat”. He admitted that it was difficult and lamented the superficiality of the media and moderators and voters themselves, who don’t push candidates hard enough to elaborate on issues of judgment.

I asked all the panelists to assess the quality of forums in town, stating that I missed Teddy Bart’s Round Table and wondered whether lots of campaign debates were a good thing and whether empty town hall meetings were a good thing. Larry said that “67 debates” were abusive in last year’s mayoral race but pointed out that Beth would probably listen to even a dozen voters at a poorly attended town hall if they were all saying the same thing.

As for the discussion I led, my presentation was Extra Terrestrial: The Outsized Influence of Talk Radio in America’s Political Discussion. I basically talked about the structural imbalance of political ideologies represented in the landscape of radio and how that bolsters a biased echo chamber from think tank to network (FOX News). I expressed hope for a landscape that was not necessarily more balanced ideologically but rather a less ideological landscape altogether that asked more of each of us in terms of critical thinking but offered more in return.

Many thanks to David Curtis and Bonnie Smith for the opportunity.