Stephen Colbert's appearance on Meet The Press a couple weeks ago was fantastic for two reasons. One, it was hilarious. Second, his attempt to behave like a real presidential candidate and give non-answers to every single one of Tim Russert's questions, while meant to be humorous, was disturbingly realistic. He didn't answer one question. Sure I laughed, but I was also very bothered by the truth of it all. Isn't it just a little bit frightening that a comedian can deliver the same quality answers as the people trying to be the next ruler of the Free World?

    The problem today is that elite politicians are overly consumed with polling, message spinning and the ever-so-prominent thirty-second sound byte. Candidates are marketed to us the same way Pepsi and iPods are. No substance, just branding and message. It is clear that America's political elites need to enhance their level of dialogue. At the same time, however, I can't help but wonder if the shallowness of today’s political discourse is our own fault.

Newt's "Nine Nineties in Nine" speech challenges presidential candidates to engage in substantive political discourse by participating in one-on-one dialogue in a 90-minute debate. Great idea.

Do you and I, as responsible American citizens, need to do the same thing?

            I just finished reading an article called “Deliberation Day” from The Journal of Political Philosophy. (As a graduate student, I read a lot of these things.) In it, Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin call for a national holiday to be held one week before major national elections in the U.S. On Deliberation Day, registered voters will be called together in small neighborhood groups or larger groups of 500 in order to discuss central issues in the campaign. The point of such an event is to improve the character of public opinion. This is an interesting proposition.

            If we, the public, were to assume our roles as the ideal American citizen and take it upon ourselves to become better informed on the issues that face us, wouldn’t we have a tremendously positive effect on the overall political environment? The change would be amazing.

            In front of a better-informed audience, presidential candidates would re-think the sound byte strategy. It would no longer be acceptable. Ackerman and Fishkin explain that if the candidates knew that the public would be dissecting their messages during something like Deliberation Day, they would feel compelled to have a more substantive message.

            I picture it as being similar to our jury-trial system. In court, a lawyer makes a well-thought-out and persuasive argument for his client because he knows that the jury will be analyzing every last detail of his case. How ludicrous would it be if a lawyer got up in front of a jury for just thirty seconds, made a case with no details, and then said, “Please vote Not Guilty?" It’s absurd. Why is this OK when it comes to America’s democracy? We, like the jury, must let the political elites know that we too will be deliberating over their case. It starts with us. We must inform ourselves.

I, for one, will continue to drink Pepsi and use my iPod because I like their commercials. I won’t, however, tolerate the current brand of presidential candidates being sold to me.

~ Michelle

P.S. You can start this revolution by reading Ackerman and Fishkin’s article. It is called “Deliberation Day” and it appears in The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 10, Number 2, 2002, pp. 129-152.