The "Debate"

Antiwar libertarians (in one sense that's redundant; in another it's not) are upset that Ron Paul is getting such short shrift from the news media following his participation in the Republican "debate." This was inevitable. In fact, the very format of the "debate" guaranteed that only the anointed top-tier candidates would get any respect. I use quote marks around "debate" because it was not a debate. It was a joint softball news conference with unequally allocated time. There were barely any follow-up questions, and the candidates were not permitted to question each other. What kind of debate is that?

Moreover, with ten candidates on the stage, we knew going in there would be no time for any positions to be developed. The whole thing was a joke, more precisely, a media event that MSNBC could milk for ratings.

If that network (and the others) were serious about informing people about who was running for these nominations, they would do, let's say, one-hour interviews with each candidate -- one on one. But no, for a couple of reasons they won't do that. First, they know the ratings would be too small to justify the time. How many people will tune it for ten long interviews?

Second, that format would require that "minor" candidates -- such as Ron Paul, an antiwar Republican who thereby doesn't fit most people's worldview -- would have to be given equal time.

So that's why we were stuck with the joke we saw the other night. I despise what most people call "democracy." And so do the television news people. But at least I admit it. I don't play Chris Matthews's game and pretend to be gaga about the process.

Speaking of Chris Matthews, who says he was against the Iraq was from the start: why does he say the troops are serving "their country." If the war is against the interests of most Americans, which Matthews says he believes, they can't be serving the country. At most they are serving the president. (I e-mailed this to Matthews. So far no answer.)