Our
View: Reform so-called debates
Every
four years, a groaning American public is
bombarded with an unconscionable number
of political advertisements. We speculate
that by the end of the campaign season each
and every person, with some variation depending
on whether they live in Rhode Island or
Florida, has suffered through hundreds of
minutes of negative advertisements.
Providing
an ostensible counterbalance to these generally
melodramatic and frequently misleading commercials
are the presidential debates. These are
the primetime forums in which the American
public has a chance to see the candidates
express their policies before the scrutiny
of a media panel and the country as a whole.
Ideally, the differences between the candidates
are fleshed out and their respective policies
are laid bare for all to see.
Of
course, what is idealistic is rarely realistic.
These so-called debates usually are quickly
transformed into a mudslinging bout in which
the opponents assail one another with almost
unceasing mouthfuls of policy generalities
and highfalutin derision.
But
while this lack of quality may seem to be
a natural byproduct of party politics, we
believe it is exacerbated by the unfocused
style of the debates. That is to say, the
debates try to cover all the major issues
in their entirety in 90 minutes. Each candidate
is asked one or two questions about a specific
topic and from the answer the country is
supposed to become fully cognizant of their
entire stance. It’s a bit like asking
someone if they like carrots and assuming
you know every vegetable they will and won’t
eat based on their response.
A
better approach would be to create issue-specific
debates. Each debate would be a detailed
discussion of a certain area. Topics could
include foreign policy, trade, public safety,
healthcare and environment. Obviously there
would be some overlap, and some of the debates
could incorporate a few important issues
or areas of public interest so as not to
become excessively draining and intricate.
One debate on gun control, for example,
might be a little too specific.
Three
debates (the number in which Bush and Gore
participated in 2000) would likely be enough
to accommodate this new format. But one
or two additional debates might nonetheless
be a preferable way to stave off voter decisions
based upon a good or bad impression of a
few speeches.
After
the issue-specific debates, one general
debate fashioned after the current format
could help to recap and clarify the candidates’
positions.
Furthermore,
the nearly unprecedented vice presidential
influence of Dick Cheney suggests that voters
should regard running mates as more than
mere afterthoughts whose positions and policies
will be of little consequence. The number
of vice presidential debates should be increased
to at least two and the structure also should
be issue specific.
In
the meantime, before the debates take place
later this year, we recommend that all voters
take the time to read newspapers and visit
the candidates’ Web sites to gain
a more detailed understanding of where Bush
and Kerry (and Nader, if you swing that
way) stand on the issues. And unless you
prefer your candidate’s message delivered
in 30-second sound bites full of distortions
and pounding music, be careful when you
turn on the television.
|
