Customer Reviews

No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

George Farah writes about the current organization that orchestrates the Presidential debates, including its history and the details of how it operates. According to Farah, the Commission on Presidential Debates is not the nonpartisan organization it claims to be, but instead is a bipartisan, corporate sponsored front for the Republican and Democratic parties controlled by the campaigns of the Republican and Democratic nominees. The author points out in great detail the hypocrisies, lies, and manipulations the two parties, the Commission members, and the campaigns engage in to maintain the domination of the two major parties in the debates. He concludes his book by presenting the formation of the Citizens' Debate Commission and the principles under which this new Commission would operate. To those who are interested in how our political system operates and how we might improve it, this book not only offers insight, it offers an alternative to the current system which is a blight on a free and democratic society. The book includes two appendices. The first is a document from the 1996 presidential campaign entitled 'Memorandum of Understanding' which is the agreement reached between the Clinton and Dole campaigns as to all the particulars of how the debate will be conducted. These memorandums are rubber stamped by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The second appendix is a press release from the Democratic and Republican parties indicating the formation of the Commission on Presidential Debates. This document is replete with a lot of civic high mindedness for the formation of this organization which in reality serves the two major parties and not the interests of the American electorate.

This is a must read for anyone who has found American politics to be oddly and uncomfortably narrow. Have you ever wondered why you don't get to see some of the candidates you want see, like Perot, Nader, and Buchanan? Have you ever wondered why you don't hear about some critical issues, like free trade, government waste, immigration, child poverty, and media concentration? Have you ever wondered why you only hear a series of boring, memorized soundbites, rather than actual discussion between the candidates? In this book, No Debate, George Farah shows just how the Republican and Democratic candidates secretly collude to control, manipulate, and ultimately ruin the most important public forum for the education of the American people - the presidential debates. The presidential debates are the gatekeeper to the election, and when you keep candidates and issues out of the debates, you keep them out of American politics. Farah's book is a truly fascinating exposé of the major party candidates' behind-the-scenes manipulation of the debates, replete with stunning quotes and entertaining anecdotes. Did you know that Perot was included in the 1992 presidential debates because President Bush - who ultimately blamed Perot for costing him the election -- demanded that Perot be included? The book reads with remarkable clarity and refreshing speed, and ends with a proposal for reform that is, in fact, being pushed by leading conservative, liberal, and centrist civic leaders. If you care about democracy and you're tired of being deceived, No Debate is a must read.

Remember that totally boring debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000? Why so much agreeing with each other, why was there no REAL debate going on? Well this book takes that issue head on, and it's about time someone did. These debates are shown for what they truly are, which is orchestrated soundbites. The two party duopoly has monopilized this venue so that other parties/issues cannot invade their control of the subjects and issues of the election.

Mark my words: if this control of the debate continues than less and less voters will show up to the booths. And also, if John Kerry is stupid enough to agree to a protocol for the debate as was done in debates past, he will certainly lose the election because you have to catch George W. Bush off gaurd to see what he's really made of.

I am a little behind in my reading, but I have been thinking about this text and feel that No Debate challenges the status quo, but additionally, has already influenced the shape of current debates. UTube has found a presence not seen before and multimedia will continue to reinvent modern elections. What I particularly liked about the book (I am not done) is the author's suggested action items. This book does not whine and leave us wondering "what should we do?". Instead, Farah offers intelligent alternatives and I believe we are seeing some of this put into motion already. What will be next for the this author?

My review is written 7 years after the first one appeared here, so I'll avoid repeating what's already been said. The strength of this book is its streamlined presentation that makes a succinct case without a gram of overkill. His position is unassailable, because it rests on the wide array of statements made by the debate overseers themselves, to the effect that they want the two-party system to sweep all before it, with no wild cards allowed to inject spontaniety or nudge debate into a non-establishment direction. Over the decades, this has resulted in an ever-narrowing range of issues that see the light of day, and even upon these few issues there is more and more agreement between the two parties, so that the "debates" are largely beauty contests. Real issues are put on the shelf and not discussed. Examples aplenty abound in the book.

The committee organizing the events meets in advance with media specialists from the two major parties, with the latter specifying the ground rules that will foreclose anything unexpected. The organizing committee is their hostage and plays ball. They all know the result will further entrench the two- party system and this is what they are all drawing the wagons around. Again, documentation is perfect and examples abound.

All the standard arguments supporting the way things are run, in the organizers' own words, are examined and rebutted with documentation.

It's clear the present debate system is to keep the entrance gates narrow and big-wig approved. The Russ Perot campaign efforts and their (rare!) entry into the debates are thoughtfully examined and lessons drawn.

This is one link in the chain of governments becoming more anonymous in their operations, more elite-managed and citizen imput kept within patrolled boundaries. The "debates" support the trend, while keeping alive the folklore of participatory democracy.

This book stays memorable after having read a number of books on voting and political theory. This is the BEST book on the US's presidential debates. Farah provides a shocking picture of the bizarre rules participants must adhere to. Your jaw drops further at the corporate and lobbyist entrenchment. But most appalling is the energy that the commission (with Republicans and Democrats) dedicates to barring voices outside the two parties. This book is thorough, yet easily manageable in its length. Don't be surprised if you finish it in one long sitting.

Do yourself a favor. Let Farah enlighten you with No Debate.

I first heard of this book when the author George Farah appeared on "Democracy Now," and I was interested in learning more about the CPD. This book does a very good job of discussing the various ways the two parties work to maintain a two party system, often hurting the interest of the American voter. My only complaint is that some of the latter chapters discussed the positive alternatives we could make, which I felt was unnecessary and didn't really add anything to my knowledge of the debates. Plus it includes a joke John Kerry made which made me laugh, although it wasn't about how he was trailing in the polls and needed to "ketchup." Why ketchup related jokes were not part of his campaign, I'll never know. Digression aside, as I stated in my title - everyone should read this to better understand the politics behind the supposed "informational" debates which are less a representation of our freedom and democracy, and more another example of how the rich and powerful keep becoming the rich and powerful.