Were less stupid and destructive than our opponents is a claim almost certainly true on the conservative side, given the terrible slide into Left-wing radicalism that increasingly characterises the Democrats but it is hardly an inspiring vision. It is also the case that the typical decent conservative is simply outmatched when it comes to character assassination and mud-slinging: the Left has elevated reputation-savaging and destruction to an art. If I had to wager on who was better at it, by character and practice, I would place my bet on Californias all-too-smiley, shiny, slick and popular Newsom rather than the earnest-to-the-point-of-easy-satire DeSantis.

Here are some real questions that serious, thoughtful people might perhaps really want to have answered: by what principles do you govern? Why those principles, rather than the many others available? How do your principles differ, in your opinion, from those of your opponent? What is your vision, generally, for the future and, more specifically, with regard to the important dimensions of human life: employment, entrepreneurship, education, energy, environment, family; with regard to civic responsibility, opportunity and duty?

Did anyone learn from the debate what would be different under DeSantis or Newsom, with regard to the energy that keeps our lights on, the environment that we will leave our grandchildren, or the educational and health systems that cost us ever more and in many ways deliver ever less?

The Fox hosting was designed to produce the fiery debate (which was almost all smoke, rather than true flames) it sold itself as in the aftermath mop-up. That post-hoc analysis was also purely performative and formulaic, featuring as it did the same predictable commentators, looking both half-dead and pithed as they always do, in consequence of being unable to see or even truly hear their questioner or their fellow participants through the archaic single earbuds and faceless one-way camera the networks still inexplicably insist upon employing.

The discussion could have been mediated to maximise reasonable and informative exchange, rather than designed or allowed to spark and encourage a destructive fire. An agreed-upon list of (real) questions would have improved things: some space for a genuine interviewer to interpose something spontaneous, and the imposition of some actual equally-agreed-upon rules of engagement: three minutes for a response, say, from each participant, with another minute or two for rebuttal.

Instead, it seemed that half the time Newsom and DeSantis were talking over one another, with Hannitys voice frequently added to the fray. All that did was present a juvenile front.

We need to grow up, and quickly. The tectonic plates are moving underneath us, at a rate heretofore unprecedented, and the shocks and after-shocks will be both continuous and great. We can no longer afford and probably never could to parasitise the political process for the sake of the ratings that are, in any case, falling ever-further and seem fated to do so.

Were embroiled in at least two wars. Our societies are rife with internal conflict. We have great possibilities and great danger in front of us. We must negotiate that territory carefully or there will be an unimaginable price to pay. It would have been much better to have the discussion hosted by Joe Rogan, or Theo Von, or Lex Fridman the popular podcast hosts derided by Newsom as leading micro-cults. Those hosts attract large audiences because they ask honest questions and promote true dialogue, without any of the faux-entertainment hype that has characterised the political and ideational landscape since the widespread introduction of broadcast television. Rogan manages to dominate the podcast landscape making the charts in 65 countries with a team that basically consists of himself and one assistant. Hype is not his aim. The same is true of the other new media interviewers with true global impact.

Ultimately, we should be talking about what comes next, instead of casting aspersions at our hypothetical foes. These are people we must live beside and with. We can accomplish that with vision, not with accusation no matter how justified and necessary such accusation sometimes is. Heres a thought for would-be leaders: My opponents are, at best, wrong not because of the errors they are currently making, no matter how manifold, but because the possibilities they are offering are simply not as attractive as what I am dreaming up and planning.

I would love to see a true vision presented by the would-be leaders of the US, as the problems that beset America are characteristic of those plaguing us everywhere in the free and democratic world. We need to up our game: conservatives, liberals and progressives alike. Sadly, that is not what happened on the Thursday night of the Right versus Left smoke-and-mirror juvenile broadcast brawl we were subjected to.

You can watch The Telegraphs most recent interview with Jordan Peterson via this link.

More from Jordan Peterson exclusively for The Telegraph:

- Eco-extremists are leading the world towards despair, poverty, and starvation

- We are sacrificing our children on the altar of a brutal, far-Left ideology

- Trans activism is sexist and delusional

- Why I love Great Britain

- Twitter is turning us all insane

See the rest here:

American democracy is exhausted - and US media elites are digging its grave - The Telegraph