I’m tired,
Tired of playing the game
Ain’t it a crying shame
I’m so tired
God dammit I’m exhausted

Mel Brooks/Blazing Saddles (1974)

You don’t have to be Lili Von Shtupp (portrayed by Madeline Kahn) to know the feeling.  How many of us feel tired and exhausted in the current political environment?  But we do not know exactly what is causing this sensation.  And not knowing only exacerbates the situation  Why?  Because we seek a solution without understanding the problem.  We want treatment without an accurate diagnosis.  That is exactly where I found myself Saturday evening when it came to coverage of the third test of voter preference for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.  Me, the commensurate political junkie.

MSNBC had promised the first returns from the Nevada caucuses would be available beginning at 5:00 pm.  But I could not watch.  Since the fall of 1967, when as a freshman at the University of Virginia, my Government 101 professor Caroline Dinegar  introduced me to wonders of politics in American, I had lost interest for the first time.  And under the worst possible circumstances.  Did I not believe my own hype?  Does the future of American democracy and perhaps the fate of the free world not depend on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election?  Yet, I retreated to televised coverage of the third round of a golf tournament outside Mexico City.  (NOTE:  There was some sense of poetic justice when the International Federation of PGA Tours moved this event south of the border after being held at the Trump Doral Resort from 2007 through 2016.)

Was it disappointment that Nevadans boosted Bernie Sanders’ quest for the Democratic nomination?  Or that his heading the party’s ticket in November would be a drag on down-ballot races?  That seemed to be the case with many past Democratic activists.  On Sunday morning, I saw a replay of James Carville, explaining why he does not support Sanders.  “I’m 75 years old.  And at this age, I don’t want to be part of a cult.”  I don’t know if you can describe Sanders’ following as a cult or a movement.  But, at least, Carville had diagnosed his own discomfort.

It was time for Dr. ESP (although lacking any medical credentials or expertise) heal himself.  The process of pinpointing the cause for my exhaustion began with a few questions.  Was it an evolving distaste for politics in general?  Or more focused on specific events or individuals? What triggered this lack of energy? How did I react when I felt this fatigue coming on?  And finally, do the answers to these questions have some common thread or theme?

Step #1 was to gather empirical data which included the following three observations.

• Based on past blog entries, there is no question how I feel about the numerous debates among the Democratic contenders.  I have not watched any of them.  But I am not disinterested and still read the transcripts the next morning.
• At my wife’s request, I turn down the sound any time Donald Trump appears on the television.  I now find myself doing the same when Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tom Steyers and Trump surrogates (too numerous to name) are speaking or being interviewed.
• I no longer watch Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow or Chris Cuomo.   My two cable news shows of choice are White House Deadline with Nicole Wallace and The Beat with Ari Melber.

Not what one would call exhaustive research but enough to see commonality which led to my “James Carville moment.”  It is not the substance of the debate, but the tone. I am 70 years old.  I am the beneficiary of 20 years of formal education, 10 years of religious training and being called behind the woodshed on too many occasions for challenging conventional wisdom or business as usual.

As I begin the eighth decade of life, the last thing I want is to be lectured or yelled at.  And that simple truth explains everything.  Debate transcripts lack volume and theatrics.  I am reminded of the dichotomy among those who watched the Kennedy/Nixon debate in 1960 and those who listened to it via radio.  Viewers saw Kennedy as the winner while listeners chose Nixon as the victor.  Likewise, when you read debate transcripts you come away with a totally different perspective than having watched them on TV.  You realize the most compelling visual moments are often inconsequential when it comes to substance.

When do I turn down the volume on the TV?  Only when confronted by those who can only be described as “the loudest voices in the room.”  Do these individuals think they are addressing citizens of a foreign country?  “If only I speak louder, they will understand me even if I don’t speak their language.”

Yet, most of all, my preferences in cable news shows solidify the diagnosis.  Matthews has turned the art of questioning on its head by spending more time presenting the inquiry than he allows a guest to answer.  Maddow turns every story into a cliffhanger.  And Cuomo pairs guests to amp up the volume with little or no clarity on the substance.  In contrast, Wallace and Melber sit back and give the experts room to share their knowledge and experience.  Wallace often ends an interview by telling a guest, “You just blew me away.”  What a welcome contrast to those who believe they are always the “smartest person in the room.”

Maybe this is an extension of the often subtle debate over the terms “convince” and “persuade.”  Convince means to “move by argument or evidence to belief, agreement, consent, or a course of action.” (Dictionary.com)  Persuade means “to induce to believe by appealing to reason or understanding.” (Ibid)  If given those two choices, I find I gravitate to appeals based on reason rather than arguments intended to move me.  However, there is a third choice, commonly referred to as the “Socratic Method.”  According to Wikipedia, this approach is “a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.”

Imagine, instead of a debate among contenders, a forum of voters being presented with a candidate’s position and then encouraged to parse its strengths and weaknesses among themselves. Any law or business professor who employs case teaching, grounded in the Socratic method, as their primary classroom tool will tell you collaborative learning results in a more thorough delineation of the options and often a gradual coming together of the minds.

Radical?  Maybe.  But radical times demand radical responses.  Just make sure the hemlock is stored on the upper shelves in child-proof containers away from those that see the shift of power from the stage to the audience as a threat.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP