Mostly fond and polite remembrances were aired across the media.

But in an often included common clip, which I heard it on NPR and others heard or saw elsewhere, was an excerpt from a debate between Buckley and Noam Chomsky on Buckley’s Firing Line program.

Chomsky’s voice, and voices of those who share overlapping views in their analysis of United State government policies and actions, are simply rarely heard in Western public and commercial news media today. But plenty of Buckley’s intellectual progeny are on the air all the time.

There are many instances of marginal progress to be cited in the United States and around the world. We’ve inched forward in many ways in the past half-decade or so. But in the sense of diverse, open debate on the media most people have the most access to we have reverted.

I’m not ignoring the potential and the great examples that can be found, usually after hunting, on the Internet in that statement. It’s my understanding that most working class people get their news from radio and television still, and media access and media content does not usually speak directly to “them” (I say them, I might say us — but I’ve probably broken out of any sociologists definition of the classes).

Nothing else was shown of what this individual said, so perhaps he had a more nuanced view. But I wonder why people say things like that and I wonder why the press focuses on that. It seems like elections would be much more functional, primary elections especially, if you lined up behind the candidate who most represented your concerns and then voted for them—and then you found out who the leader was.

And if you were a “good” party member, you then supported that leader.

Instead people are encouraged to hedge their bets and pick a winner—before they actually pick a winner based on something meaningful.

Of course this has been the case for many election cycles now, so its probably a self-fulfilling habit: There probably is not anyone these people would really want to line-up behind based on the full portfolio of their issues or a close analysis of their credibility. For me, despite all the talk of “hope” and “change” (cliches that, coming from DLC Democrats, are oxymorons without being compound words), that sentiment applies across the aisle.

There’s a problem when people feel there are no good candidates and no clear leader, even the “clarity” presented by not having to deal with actual issues.

Of course, there are people who have looked closely at this kind of failure of democracy. And the dysfunction of horse race politics, poorly moderated debates and media myopia are not the only problems. Take a look at the work of non-profit endeavors like Fair Vote and Open Debates.