After Ireland's loss to France in the Six Nations Rugby on Sunday, the post game analysis made me wonder if the panel and I watched the same match. So too last night's leaders' debate. Raking through the coals of yesterday's discourse, there is hardly an instance where two commentators agree on the performance of the candidates. The one exception being, that Enda Kenny did well, or at least didn't harm his chances of becoming Taoiseach of the forthcoming 31st Dáil. Opinion. Yours and mine. Hers and his.
One such commentator on Pat Kenny's radio show this morning suggested it was Gerry Adams who won the debate because he made no attempt to engage in real policy and because without pretense he spoke to 'his people.' One is forced to question this logic as, presumably, Gerry's 'people' are already votes in the bag.
Whilst Ireland elects a parliament, the effect of the leaders' debate is not unlike an American presidential debate. The party leaders are not debating merely to ensure their own seats, and are therefore not merely speaking to their own constituents. They, like a presidential nominee, put forth a vision for Ireland on behalf of all the candidates of their respective parties. It is for this reason that I believe Adams performed poorly (relatively speaking). He danced around his podium like a fidgeting child, perhaps a metaphor for his reluctance to engage on specific policy issues.
Early on, it was the Sinn Féin leader, along with Micheál Martin, who traded insults, each calling the other a 'magician' and reference to Paul Daniels was made. But the real magicians of political debates are the practitioners of the dark art of spin.
Spin masks itself as mere opinion, and after all, everyone is entitled to one of those, right? What is striking in the post debate discussion, is how we are unaware of most Irish commentators' political allegiances and as a result their opinions should be treated with healthy scepticism, as if they are dressed in sheep's clothing.
For example, I am surprised by how positively commentators have reacted to the more negative aspects of the debate. Phrases such as 'landed a blow there' or 'had him on the ropes' were used to describe (the albeit rare) personal attacks of one leader to another, such as when Martin reminded Adams that he's not from 'down here.' But in the U.S. participants are warned against such negative attacks as polling data suggests that voters prefer candidates to espouse their own policies in favour of negativity.
Perhaps the most polarising performance of the night was that of Green leader, John Gormley. He was on the periphery of the stage and, for long periods, of the debate. But when he held the floor, he spoke with a coolness that many have misinterpreted as defeatist - as if the nitty-gritty of government has punctured his idealist view of politics. He attempted to engage with the other leaders and his rhetoric was the least partisan of the bunch (what other option does he have). Green supporters may feel aggrieved that Fianna Fáil and Labour borrowed the Green playbook but can console themselves that environmental issues featured prominently over the 90 minutes.
Micheál Martin meanwhile, as the most embattled of all the participants, was bullish and sometimes snide and condescending. But overall he deflected the attacks well and not once did he mention 'Fianna Fáil.' A rebranding has taken place where the tarnished FF has given way to MM.
Enda Kenny, who in his role as Taoiseach elect, looked statesmanlike and calm. He occupied the centre of the stage and visually much of the focus was on him, and as such, reinforced the perception of him as a leader.
The suggestion that, because of a meeting with German Chancellor Merkel earlier that day, Kenny was not coached or 'handled' is preposterous. He stayed on message throughout and mentioned FG's 5-point plan and policy document 'Lets Get Ireland Working' several times and his well judged hand-in-the-pocket-I'm-in-control moment was not spontaneous.
All in all, television debates are a matter of style over substance. I would have preferred if one of the debates was conducted through the medium of radio only. It is a commonly held belief that in the U.S. presidential debate of 1960 between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy that those who listened on radio favoured the former, whilst those who watched on television preferred the latter. Perhaps then, we would have to pay more attention to what was said and not how it was said. Then maybe, the candidates would say something worth hearing.
*
No comments:
Post a Comment