Not sure how many of you imaginary readers tuned into the recent Presidential debate but, by all accounts, it was a farce.
Lots of talking, very little information, no order.
Many have suggested cutting the mic if a candidate disrupts the speaking format or agreed procedural flow, and that could restore some order, but wouldn't do much to elicit accurate or useful information from the debaters.
If the Commission on Presidential Debates ever asks me to moderate, I've got my game plan ready to go. I'll open by asking each candidate to raise their right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This is a fantastically powerful and well-constructed phrase that deserves a little reflection.
Swearing to tell "the truth", of course, means that the candidates will accurately relay the facts about their past records, their intended policies, and their feelings. "The whole truth" means that they won't cherry pick any misleading statistics from arcane economic reports or social studies, and present them with an intentional lack of context. And finally, "nothing but the truth" will restrict them from appending their responses with slanderous exaggerations about what will happen if the the other side's policies are enacted.
As it stands now, debate preparation is an exercise in crafting less than truthful representations of how one side is right and the other is wrong. Success is based on how effectively the truth can be bent in two-minute segments of real time. Even worse, other than next day fact checks, that seem not to resonate with any public magnitude, there is no consequence for dishonesty during the debate.
If a citizen lies to the federal government under oath, it is a felony. It seems to me that a candidate for a federal position lying to the citizenry is no less egregious. A sworn oath of honesty seems to work in court; I'll give it a try if they ask me to moderate.
