如果柏拉图还活着，看完了特朗普和拜登的首场竞选辩论后，可能会称他俩为一对“诗人”。 倒不是二人的措辞多么诗情画意。在柏拉图看来，诗人的辞藻和哲学思考无关，只是在大众的口味里随波逐流，媚俗得不配留在他的“理想国”里。哲人对真理的索求和言说则与之截然相反。是否以取悦大众为目的，就成了二者间标志性的分隔符之一。 如柏拉图“理想国”那般严丝合缝的社会可能并没有太大吸引力。但“诗人”Vs.“哲人”的对立或许会对收看大选辩论有所启发。套用今日更为常用的术语，应该就是政客和政治家的区别吧。电视辩论的初衷想必是为了展示候选人的国士风范，但镜头前藏不住的还有政客的精明。 美国大选电视辩论于1960年发端，始于肯尼迪和尼克松“放对”。结果更上镜的肯尼迪占尽上风。尼克松则被批毫无生气。就这样，媒体开始悄然改变美国大选的操作方式：除了国是问题，“人设”万万不能出问题。 流量为王，电视台和野心勃勃的候选人的目标天然一致。为了关注度，大选辩论中的“人设”与如何揭穿对手的“人设”就变得同等重要。 1988年大选期间的副总统候选人电视辩论，就给“人设坍塌”画上了浓墨重彩的一笔。 老布什的竞选搭档，共和党参议员詹姆斯•丹•奎尔因为资历浅而被人诟病。奎尔决定在电视辩论上先发制人，将自己与四十六岁就当上总统的肯尼迪比肩。不料算盘打错，撞在了老兵的“枪口”上。他的辩论对手劳埃德•本特森恰是肯尼迪的宦海同辈。这位前辈毫不留情：我和肯尼迪一起扛过枪，一起入的行，你和他比，要多不像有多不像。 按照古希腊的标准，柏拉图的作品里也不乏诗歌的操作方式。或许让这位先哲不爽的并非诗体本身，而是轻易流俗、哗众取宠的调调。众声喧哗的环境里，哪怕在电视辩论的聚光灯下，讨论政策方针渐渐成了累赘，“我当了总统你就要下大狱”这类语不惊人死不休的唇枪舌剑才能留住观众。 不知幸或不幸，美国建国时还没有电视，围绕国体的大辩论只能在报纸上完成。三位国父为了留住各州大团结的美利坚，一口气发表了85篇文章支持联邦宪法，还不算写完了没发表的。这套苦口婆心的作品随后结集成册，是为《联邦党人文集》。 在有关总统选举的一篇中，亚历山大•汉密尔顿引用了英国启蒙诗人蒲柏的句子： “政体如何，愚人多虑；其实好坏，全在治理。” “……我们却不妨承认，优良政体的真正检验标准应视其能否有助于治国安邦”，汉密尔顿如是补充。 在真正的政治家看来，柏拉图对诗歌的批评可能有些过于严苛了。毕竟，诗人与诗人之间也是有鄙视链的吧。 'Sidelines' is a column from CGTN's Social Media Desk If Plato were still alive and had watched the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, he might call the two a pair of poets. Mind that neither the sitting President of the United States nor the Democratic candidate had spoken particularly poetically when crossing swords during the televised event on Tuesday. What had occurred could not be more to the contrary. In Plato's eyes, a poet could be a controversial title to hold – rhetoricians who appeal to as large an audience as possible for reputation and influence. Minced words of this kind "mustn't be taken seriously as a serious thing laying hold of truth", Plato, through Socrates's voice, derides in The Republic. For the antique Greek writer, a philosopher is the opposite of a poet. Instead of making things up to seek favor, a philosopher searches for truth and persuades on its behalf, of which a "philosopher king" is a 2.0 edition: a reliable, modest ruler loving both wisdom as well as intelligence. Plato's ideal world, where people all have their lives preordained, may not be very pleasant to inhabit after all. But the philosopher's poet-philosopher comparison can be adapted for modern political analysis: showmanship Vs. statesmanship. A televised debate might have been perceived to demonstrate the latter, but never fails to flatter the former. The United States saw its first presidential debate broadcast in 1960. The rivalry was between John F. Kennedy, the Democratic nominee, and Vice President and Republican nominee Richard Nixon. The more TV-savvy JFK came out of the history-making show on top, as far as the pair's on-screen performance was concerned. Before arriving at the studio in Chicago, Nixon, worn out by campaign activities, looked like being "embalmed before he even died", reportedly commented then Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. In rallying as many viewers as possible, TV producers find the presidentially ambitious a natural ally. The construction of a persona on TV to impress voters is a common strategy. So is shredding your opponent's staged character into pieces. A "legendary comeback" occurred in 1988 during a vice-presidential debate. The Republican Senator Dan Quayle was selected by the then incumbent vice-president and Republican presidential candidate George Bush as his running mate despite being seen as too inexperienced for the ticket. Quayle tried to pre-empt any ambush on the issue by likening himself to JFK during the debate with Lloyd Bentsen, his Democrat counterpart, only landing in a disastrous castigation from the latter: "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." For Plato also writes with poetic devices, what he might genuinely frown upon isn't as many poems as the catchy but hollow words that often give poetry a bad name, much like clever punchlines that tend to crowd out serious discussions. In the kind of noise that followed "you'd be in jail" or "you are a racist", political analyses of the debater's policy orientation are often at the risk of being drowned. During one of the most decisive political debates of U.S. history, three of the country's founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, defended their proposed Constitution with what's now commonly known as the Federalist Paper. TV wasn't there yet when the articles were published in succession. Luckily for them, maybe? Aware that styles matter, Hamilton quotes a poet – might to the disapproval of Plato – on the subject of "The Mode of Electing the President" to advance his position: "For forms of government let fools contest — That which is best administered is best." (by Alexander Pope) Following the verse, the statesman continues: "…yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration." A Platonic poet may struggle to become a real statesman. But a true statesman surely knows his poetry by heart.