Does the presidential debate format favor the GOP worldview?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

I could be mistaken here, so have patience, but it is my understanding that the underlying theme of the 3 presidential debates is: the economy, foreign policy and social issues. I have, in the past, heard these described as the 3 legs of the conservative stool.

Progressives -- again, if I'm correct -- don't think in such segmented terms. We tend to see things more homogenously and holistically. You cannot separate economics from social issues because our jails are teeming with people denied economic opportunity; there is no foreign policy because there is no Us vs. Them, there is only All Of Us; the vitality ofsocial justice in foreign societies is a boon to the US as much as those nations, etc. etc. etc.

So, by forcing these, to the progressive mind, artificial distinctions the debates create an underlying tension to how a progressive would confront various issues, while at the same time creating a de facto case in favor of the conservative worldview and provide a forum where a conservative can thrive.

And for what it's worth -- I think those instances when Obama has most disappointed his progressive base is when he has stepped outside this holistic mindset and acquiesced to the segmented, 3-legged worldview, i.e. when he decouples foreign policy (drones strikes) from social justice the progressive base rails (and the conservatives are unusually uncritical).

Just my silly thought. Flame away (but not too hard).

[cali]

1. No. I don't think you can say that.

The economy, foreign policy and "social issues" are of vital importance to Progressives as well as Conservatives. They have wildly divergent views on these issues which should be contrasted. There is no reason why a Progressive debater cannot point out the economic aspects of, for instance, issues like access to birth control; something President Obama actually does quite frequently

I don't see how you can possibly say there is no foreign policy. What does that even mean? Whether or not there's an "Us vs. Them", the U.S. still has a foreign policy, and pretending we don't is simply sticking your head in the sand.

So that's my take on it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. I'm not suggesting Progressives do not understand or appreciate these issues

I'm suggesting we do not draw the sharp, distinct delineations as conservatives do.

If I may: Do you see women's health as a social issue strictly with regards to US policy-making or do you see the US as part of the overall world community and as such what matters for women's health here is reflected in our outreach to the world as a whole?

I respectfully assume the latter.

Conservatives, on the other hand, do tend to see the world in US vs. Them terms; hence their foreign policy choices that perpetually isolate the US. They do not see social issues, such as crime rates, as a natural outgrowth of limited access to the economy. Progressives, rather than not seeing these delineations, recognize that there is no separating the two from their common whole.

I hope that clarifies.

[cali]

4. I see women's issues as both

a vital part of U.S. policy and as part of the overall world community.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. OK, but as far as the OP goes --

do you think Progressives see social, economic and foreign policy more as parts of a seamless whole whereas conservatives artificially segment these policies areas?

Because, if I'm at least marginally correct, then President Obama may be at a disadvantage because the debate format intrinsically presupposes a GOP worldview. Romney can give answers that conform to his worldview while Obama is required to segment his answers to 1/3 of his overall perspective.

When they go into the debate on social issues Obama can't talk about using economic and international policies to address this issue because the debates on economic and foreign policy will have already transpired. Yet, economics and foreign policy are integral factors to Progressive prescriptions.

Another good example: environmental protection and working conditions -- the reason US jobs are fleeing overseas is because the countries where the jobs are going have lower operating costs due to the fact they have few if any protections for their workers or their environment. You won't see Romney advocating for worker and environmental protections. You will see him advocating US vs. Them trade wars. Obama is the candidate that can best speak towards these issues on a global scale out of simple, basic, decent humanity but which it also simultaneously levels the economic playing field for US workers.

Could Obama have strenuously made this point Wednesday? No, because he would have been politely told to wait 2 weeks to discuss foreign policy or 3 weeks to discuss social issues such as labor rights. The segmentation of the debate format deprives Obama -- and any other progressive -- of 2/3 of their argument. Any person deprived of 66% of their ability to speak will naturally appear uneasy, disjointed and disorganized.

[cali]

6. I don't think it's possible to know that

far too much of a generalization. And no, essentially I simply don't agree with you that the debate formats bestow on repubs some inherent advantage- at least not one that makes much of difference at all.

there is no rule that Obama can't take these issues where he wants to take them.

He can certainly bring up the issue of U.S. jobs being outsourced because of fewer protections for workers and the environment. No, he couldn't have brought up those points on Wednesday because the question which would have enabled him to address it wasn't asked.
The format sucked, but not because of the purported unfair advantage you suggest.

Let me put this bluntly: I think your op is off the mark and misguided. I do not think it gives repubs an unfair advantage.

[panzerfaust]

2. What this country needs is a left-wing, progressive, political party.

Only then there could be meaningful debate.

Some issues which could be discussed:

Why, with 5% of the world's population, do we have 25% of the world's prisoners?

Why can the president assert the right to murder anyone at whim?

Why is America the only first-world nation without comprehensive, universal healthcare?

How has the fundamental right of habeas corpus come to be replaced with the right to make anyone los desaparecidos

Und so weiter ...