How to watch the debate without losing your mind
Getting beyond "I think that my Chris won because..."
Despite the high visibility and media attention they attract, it is generally acknowledged that televised debates generally have little outcome on elections. By now, most voters will have committed their vote on the basis of party identification basis or independent deliberation. Probably around one in five voters are still up for grabs but debate viewers lean disproportionately towards the politically engaged.
The question of who “wins” or “loses” each encounter tends to be interpreted by the viewer in a manner that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs and affiliations. Sensational moments during debates can have short-lived effects. These tend to fade by the time of the election, however.
Given the non-critical influence that debates have on election outcomes, it would be good if the politically engaged could approach these events with a more relaxed mindset. Rather than reacting angrily to perceived falsehoods or bias in moderation, partisans should take a more philosophical debate. Hurling a remote at your disfavoured Christopher, or Jessica Mutch McKay, may feel good in the light of the injustices you will inevitably perceive but is it really the best use of your time?
Pundits often find themselves cornered into playing a game of setting expectations and subsequently declaring winners and losers, like a boxing match. It’s a trap I’ve been drawn into in past elections. It’s an approach fuelled by a lack of imagination.
Instead, we are much better off looking at things with a more dialectical mindset. By that, I mean an attempt to understand where the opposing viewpoint is coming from even if you’re never going to agree with it. Without being defensive about the risk of being converted, listening to the points made in opposition to yours provides an opportunity to refine and sharpen your own beliefs and attitudes, enhancing your understanding and ability to articulate your own stance.
This extends to the moderator. The time has long gone where the role of the host is that of a mere facilitator. We are all better off if we just see him or her as a third participant. This means the moderator brings their own perspective to the debate, influencing the direction of the discourse through the choice of questions they put forth and how they manage the time allotted to each candidate.
The degree of participation can vary, adding another dynamic to the debate. Rather than becoming frustrated with this reality, just accept it. It is simply part of the debate's multifaceted nature. Save your blood pressure the hassle by treating it as another layer to dissect and understand rather than an obstacle to the fairness of the debate.
For the genuinely undecided, the debate may be frustrating as the leaders try to avoid saying anything too controversial.
There are two big common misconceptions in New Zealand politics. The first is that one or more of the of the big parties are extreme, with conservatives accusing Labour of Communism, and left-wingers accusing National of being fascists. The second is that National and Labour are different flavours of what is essentially the same.
In fact, we usually are presented with a meaningful choice between distinct political alternatives. We are fortunate to have real alternatives without the threat of radical destabilisation and some of this should come out in the debate. You may have to read behind the lines, however.
Ultimately, however, it is important to manage expectations regarding the depth of policy discussion. It is a forum for soundbites and brief exchanges, not a symposium for detailed, nuanced interrogation of policy. Although the moderator may pose uncomfortable policy questions, substantive disagreements on policy details are unlikely to be resolved during the debate.
If you want substance, look up the party manifestos. They all publish them. Just don’t expect Christopher Hipkins to accurately and comprehensively lay out an entire inflation policy in 90 seconds.
That does not mean that debates are worthless. Far from it. They do allow is some degree of assessment of character and style. There things are sometimes written off as frivolities, but prime ministers are entrusted with decision-making powers that extend beyond broad policy decisions. These types of debate provide an opportunity to observe the contenders side-by-side in an unscripted environment.
Save yourself an insurance claim. Approach tonight with an open mind and a sense of curiosity. This is not a battlefield where good will triumph over evil. Anticipating a comprehensive resolution to political differences or a complete affirmation of one's existing beliefs may only lead to frustration.
Instead, watch the debate with as much detachment as you can muster. It is a learning experience, not an Aaron Sorkin movie.
The TL;DR:
TV debates are good.
But don’t stress about too much hanging on them as the stakes aren’t that high.
Don’t waste your evening trying to contribute to a narrative about who won.
Also, don’t waste your anger on the Chris you don’t like or the moderator.
Try to take a genuinely curious approach.
Manage your expectations in terms of policy discussion but do try to tease out the meaningful differences in philosophy and style.