March 29, 2024

No Debate

Aug. 21, 2015

It’s less than a month until the next Republican presidential debate extravaganza but you still have time to make plans. And the organizers of these things still have time to create something meaningful instead of the ten-ring circus we saw last time.

We’re going to have to make some changes or we’re in danger of turning a reasonably important event into just another tacky reality program.

As a starter, using what are essentially popularity polls to determine who participates in the prime time slot and who does not is ridiculous. There is no one in the current field who deserves to be left out.

So as long as there are so many candidates, we’ll simply draw names out of a hat prior to each debate to determine time slots. Early this time, prime time next time. Everybody gets a fair shot.

Then we’ll have to get serious.

Step 1. Get rid of the live audience. The networks might think a live audience makes for better television, but the hooting and cheering only encourages more pandering than usual from the candidates. And that’s saying something.

Getting off a snappy one-liner might get a nice audience reaction, but it only creates more useless heat and less useful light.

Maybe we could actually force the candidates to say something of substance rather than fishing for an applause line.

Step 2. Get rid of the lecterns. A lectern, by definition, is a place from which a speech or sermon is delivered. We need neither. We need a conversation. Since we’ve already eliminated the audience, there is no need for the candidates to be in a long line facing outward. Instead, we’ll put them around a table and let the camera operators move.

Having the candidates facing each other instead of staring into a bank of lights might alter the character of the discussion.

Step 3. Replace the journalist/moderators with a real facilitator. We now have the candidates facing each other around a table with no live audience. The idea here is to make the candidates talk to each other so their words are more important than those in a reporter’s clever question.

A good facilitator need do little more than throw out an issue, ask someone to address it and then make sure everyone gets a fair chance while it is discussed.

Some interaction between the candidates might tell us far more about them than nine candidates waiting for their turn while one delivers a packaged response we’ve already heard to a question that has been previously asked.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear other candidates ask Donald Trump, for example, how many treaties and laws he’s willing to violate when he starts punishing Mexico because they won’t pay for his fence? Or ask Marco Rubio how continuing our 50- plus year sanctions against Cuba will help the people there rid themselves of an oppressive government they’ve had for, well, 50-plus years?

Let’s allow them the opportunity to flesh out ideas, to respond to challenges, to see who’s willing to listen and who can articulate a position without the usual cliches.

According to these candidates, these are perilous times for the country (it’s funny, isn’t it, how we have “the most important election of our lifetime” every four years?). If we accept that notion, then we should devise a better way of winnowing down the field. What currently passes for debates is not it.

The best debates have never required a panel of journalists asking questions because that isn’t a debate at all. It isn’t even a real conversation; it’s just a series of mini-press conferences by 19 people.

Real discussions begin with an issue – immigration, Iran, education, entitlements, etc. – and then a dive into the details. We want to hear more than one answer and more than one idea and we’d like to hear those ideas hashed out by the candidates proposing and opposing them.

We don’t learn much with ten folks on stage answering individual questions. There’s no time and no intention to do anything more than utter a good zinger or two and move on to the next photo-op. We’re getting all headlines and no story. It’s not enough.

Create an environment that makes the candidates truly engage and maybe we’ll learn something valuable. Maybe. But there is no chance of it now.

There is no debating the outstanding work done by virtually everyone in the aftermath of The Great Storm. First responders, power company employees, elected officials, restaurant owners, store owners, neighbors, strangers...pretty much everyone.

The irony is it was not really unusual. When the need is immediate and real, we contentious humans understand innately it is time to put aside differences, pitch in and help.

It’s a shame it takes a disaster to make that happen. The same approach would likely solve a lot of other problems, too.

Trending

Mysterious Michigan Reads

We can’t think of a better way to spend spring break than with a great book. Northern Express asked local bookseller... Read More >>

Heirloom Recipes With Heritage, History, and Nostalgia

Before we begin to stash our coats and put winter behind us, let us remember what years past have taught us…fake sp... Read More >>

A Floral Family Affair

In the quaint downtown of Elk Rapids sits Golden Hill Farms, a shop where the artistry of floristry meets the rustic charm... Read More >>

A Look at Originalism

O Tempora O Mores! Oh the times, oh the culture. This Latin phrase relates to both the 18th century and our current times.... Read More >>