Larssen wrote:
To me the debate really seemed almost a physical manifestation of the structural issues that have plagued the US for decades now. Without fundamental reform in its media landscape, political organisation and social stratification it is a certainty that this sort of 'presidential' battles will repeat. Even if Trump disappears from the stage come january, someone equally terrible or even worse will take the wheel at some point if the underlying issues are allowed to linger.
The political stage seems to have been converted into some sort of verbal iteration of an MMA octagon. The focus in politics having shifted to only producing dominating soundbites, 'gotcha' moments and slamming/punching the opponent, the best attacks personal in nature, as these generate the most clicks and ratings. Something we know Trump excels at. There was no semblance of a discussion - a symbolic reflection of a society that is tearing itself to pieces.
the same thing happens in the UK parliament with prime minister's questions. the corbyn-era saw this a lot. it was all about grabbing those 15-second soundbites to loop on twitter and social media. 'corbyn owns cameron!' you're right: essentially the politicians are only there to talk to their own audience, share the 'victory' with their own isolated follower-bubbles on social media, and continue on with the next media avalanche.
it's also worth noting that the technique of just broadcasting incessantly with no courtesy or concession to your 'debating partner' is actually pretty much competition debating technique nowadays. even in international debating competitions, at top level, with college teams, the 'meta' is very much just 'splutter as many points as you can and overwhelm your opponent'. no rhetoric, no accountability, no answering to ripostes, no substantiation. just sheer OUTPUT.
