Trump vs Hillary - Presidential debate in a few hours

In a few hours we have the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. While I am a fan of neither of them, and why would I give a shit about American elections anyway - I watch only for entertainment, I find these direct debates live on camera between candidates competing in elections a very great practice. It needs lot of courage, meticulous preparation and mental strength for a candidate to be able to take that. One can of course blow it up, but it's unlikely after reaching that level after winning many such debates with other competitors in the primaries. Like a good boxing match, there is lot of punching, offence and defense. And it's fun to watch. A lot of questions are quite direct and as the whole world is watching, you can't bullshit your way into the white house, i.e., in a relative sense only. I say relative coz there could be situations where neither of the candidates has really worked out clear stands on issues and policies, and both are just farting random shit. And in that situation, the one that sounds less insane would win - the debate, at least.

While I was writing the last line, I realized how futile these dabates can be from the point of view of deciding the electability of the candidates. One way to look at these is as reality-shows telecast on TV at prime time meant only for TRPs, entertainment and the linked revenue for engaged parties. But then, they do affect viewers' opinions about the candidates and it wouldn't be totally untrue to say a lot of voters may be influenced by the outcome of a presidential debate. Its very nature is quite unique as it brings the candidates side-by-side on the same stage and the viewers see them taking each other head on.

In the last elections if was fun watching the Obama vs Mit Romney debate. Romney never seemed very clear in his economic policy, and like a good consultant - having had a strong BCG foundation - he kept talking stuff that had more volume - both in space and vibration terms - and less sense. I am not sure Obama made much sense either... but that didn't matter coz he spoke so well!

Now we have Trump and Hillary - neither of them good orators, neither has a clean image and neither has the charisma to evoke respect that's irrespective of what they talk. Will Trump call his opponent 'Crooked Hillary' on her face? Will there be some clear talk or random gyaanbaazi? Let's see.

Wish we had these things in India. There was a time a few years back when Arvind Kejriwal invited, rather challenged, even Modi ji for a public debate. And many others too during the IAC fights for Lokpal bill. But nobody ever accepted those challenges. We know some readers may be getting furious at the mention of Kejriwal in a bit of a positive light and Modi in somewhat negative, and many would retort saying Modi has better things to do than to take a challenge from an idiot (his image at the moment, apparently) like Kejriwal who isn't qualified for a debate... bla bla... But that was not the point here... To give another example, just to dilute the hormones of Kejriwal haters and Modi lovers, our Mr. Smartass Arnab Goswami also called for debates between prime ministerial candidates during elections - with he as the moderator of course, asking all the tough questions. But nobody gave a shit. Perhaps, our leaders just don't want to set a precedent that they might later regret having to do these debates in every election thereafter. Besides, our elections are technically between parties, not people. And party stand is published or formally issued when required.

Anyway, it's already 1 am... I've to get up early to watch the debate... It's at 6.30 AM IST today i.e., 27th September 2016. Good night! Sweet Dreams!

Update - 30th Sept 2016:

The debate was one of the worst I've ever seen. Neither candidates had much to say, except some basic stuff like economy and jobs throwing numbers loosely, and a lot of mud-slinging on each other. Neither of the candidates had much concrete to say about what they were offering. Trump said tax cuts will fix everything and Hillary said tax increases will fix everything - this was perhaps the only clear statement either made on their economic policy and points of view. And neither had much of a basis apparently. One can of course argue with sufficient evidence that most economic policies based on gut feel work as good as those worked out scientifically. Perhaps even better at times. The world is fooled by randomness indeed.

So, this debate was an hour and a half of crap talk. And yet one of the candidates was declared a winner - Hillary Clinton to be specific - while it is noteworthy that the basis for her victory was not her eligibility for being the President, but was the fact that she outsmarted and out-spoke Trump quite well and very clearly. Trump, on the other hand was struggling to attack Hillary and kept failing in the absence of strong prepared and rehearsed content.

But one thing is quite clear to me after following the Obama-Romney and Trump-Hillary debates - these are no great debates, and are mostly full of finger pointing and nonsense arguments - much like the Newshour Debates of Arnab Goswami. And the quality of issues which become election game changers are as cheap in the US as they are in India. In many ways we have less pretence and more indulgent bull-shitting in India, and so we don't even bother about things like fact-checking and policy stands. The entertainment bit is handled better in the US in my view. In all this, democracy shows up as a neat hoax, but everyone wants to believe it's all by the people, for the people and of the people. Good if that makes people happy in whatever form it is.

Growth and Inequality

The world is based on an economic model which drives everything that goes on here, including what we do and how we act, and not just from the work standpoint. And it obviously determines the share of the world's resources that each one of us has the right to claim. There is of course the all-powerful thing called "money", and to earn it within the economic boundaries is all there is to life for almost the entire human race of the day. And the model is designed to grow all the time - prices have to rise, people have to keep earning more than before, entities have to increase in size or volume - basically everything is made to behave like a living creature - a human, to be more specific. Even the denial of death is not uncharacteristic. Why should growth be a given in a world which is fixed in size and the resources it has to offer?

Before I go further, I must declare: I've started reading the book - "Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus: How Growth Became the Enemy of Prosperity" by Douglas Rushkoff, and the thoughts above are influenced by the first 70 pages of the book that I've read so far. I couldn't wait till I completed it before expressing my thoughts, so here I am.

There is also a fundamental reason, in my view, behind aspiring growth which is not entirely just about crazy pursuit - it is the gradual uncovering of the mysteries of the universe by us, and which has continuously led to new possibilities for better life for us. And in principle the entire machinery of the world economy is after enabling that better life using whatever resources and knowledge we have, while also constraining its distribution with a parameter called affordability. While it can still be argued that the standard of living has increased even for the lowest of the affordability layers, the benefits increasingly get concentrated at the top. In other words, people grow at different rates.

The dominant economic thought promotes boundary-less pursuit of self-interest by individuals as a way of achieving overall prosperity, and thereby recognizes the fact that there will be unequal achievement by individuals, leading to different classes of human beings, although it claims that every class would experience net improvement in its living standard (or perish?). As even if everyone was brought to an equal level and made to run, there will always be someone winning the race and someone far behind struggling to catch up - as abilities differ, and we're born with pre-decided levels of most of them. There may be more cozy tracks to run now than in the past or better shoes to help the feet - and that's the overall upliftment achieved. But our unfair models still allow the strong to get more food than the weak because of their corresponding inherent ability to compete for food, resulting in the strong getting stronger and the weak getting weaker. We whisper of equality, but we cannot have it in the current economic model. We talk instead of equal opportunity, which is also not really a fair offer as unequal individuals do not have an equal ability to convert an opportunity. In a way we have extended God's 'natural selection' into the way the world is run, so that we can discard individuals competing poorly. If God could do this with every life form, why can't we do it with ourselves? But whoever is playing God in this model we have made for ourselves is one of us, and is also the highest beneficiary of this economic natural selection. And that's the conflict of interest which screws with the world order.