The Depressing Accuracy of Pawneean Debates
The Beginnings
If you know anything about the politics in the television series Parks and Recreation, it is that seemingly sensible viewpoints are often juxtaposed against irrationality and behaviors fueled by instant gratification.
Leslie Knope, the earnest civil servant, is of the opinion that the government exists to provide services and ways to better the lives of its citizens. However, the town she loves to such a degree is a rather undeveloped small-scale Indiana city where its citizens value the freedom of personal choice almost as much as they value flashy ads and campaigns, no matter how lacking substance they may be. You know the town has a nutrition problem when their slogan is “First in friendship, fourth in obesity.”
Time and time again, Leslie and her allies attempt to intervene in their lives. Time and time again, they are met with opposition from the citizens themselves or the large candy business Sweetums that employs most of the town.
Regardless of all naysayers, Leslie continues her fight to better and modernize Pawnee. This fight leads her to running for city council, where she faces one of her biggest challengers yet — a clueless man-child named Bobby Newport, who is the son of Sweetum’s CEO Nick Newport. Fueled with media support and a Washington D.C.-bred campaign team that Bill Gates would have trouble affording, Bobby Newport does not seemingly need any brains to win this election.
His cluelessness and naive attitude seldom holds back his relentless campaign team and myriad of resources. He goes far enough to make it to the one and only debate, with four other opponents, including Leslie Knope herself.
This show is filled with absurdity, but typically is somewhat reflective of reality. How realistic is their depiction of a political debate? You be the the judge of that…
The Debate
The first aspect of this debate that struck a chord in me was when Ben started off the episode by noting that there was a small gap between Newport and Leslie, merely a few points, and that this debate was the best chance they had at closing that gap. How true can that be?
Throughout this political debates class, we have been exploring the question, “How much do primary debates actually matter?” and come up with a few answers as to when they do matter. No, this episode does not depict a presidential primary, but for our purposes we can apply the same criteria to examine if Ben’s statement is realistically true.
One of the most important points made about debates is typically they only persuade people when the event takes place early on in the campaign. It is at that time that more people are undecided and willing to educate themselves on the issue. It is later on that people predominantly watch to reaffirm their beliefs of the candidates, not alter them.
In this case, the debate took place near the end of the campaign, right before the election. Realistically, Leslie would not have a fighting chance at making an impact. She had faced a few bad PR stints at this point and most of the citizens had made up their mind about who to support. Although the debate was the one chance to have Newport speak without a script or a fancy campaign manager to hide behind, I would say that Ben’s statement was perhaps too hopeful.
The episode also poked fun at a few aspects of debates and make allusions to past presidential campaigns. For example, Bobby Newport seemed to hark back to George Bush Sr.’s vague “war on crime” during this debate.
Although the Parks and Recreation clip was short, it is implicative that Bobby Newport is fear mongering, as was George Bush Sr. When running a campaign, one learns that there are few forces more powerful than fear.
What Bobby Newport has that George Bush Sr. did not, was earnest stupidity. Saying he’s against crime and not afraid to admit it is, well, rather obvious, but the statement floats in the air just long enough for the crowd to think it sounded smart.
I also believe the moderators were rather accurately depicted. Nowadays, it seems like the moderators are trying to give the debate some spice rather than merely facilitating the flow of a debate.
Perd Hapley, one of the moderators for the city council debate, takes up Leslie’s talking time so he can update her on time. The irony is real.
Similarly, Jim Lehrer informs Obama that is time is up before his time actually comes to an end. His interruptions and disposition makes him come off as a tad childish. When the moderators become “a part of the show”, what part of the debate is left for realistic and intellectual discourse between the candidates?
And I think that is what Parks and Recreation is trying to prove here. Campaign debates have become so sensationalized that they can hardly be called actual debates anymore. While it can be true that this show can sometimes over-exaggerate the simplicity of its citizens, the entire scenario was able to highlight the absurdities of the media while still allowing Leslie to win the crowd over at the end after Bobby Newport threatens the town with moving Sweetums to Mexico, effectively laying off half the town. It is when campaigns assure absurd promises that the citizens must begin to question what is realistic. Although the promises may not be as full of grandeur as having a “fully functional mall on Jupiter”, people will believe a lot of things.
