Well, it's an election year. This means we citizens get frequent calls from pollsters, platform fliers stuffed into our mailboxes, constant donation requests, and of course, televised debates. Or do we?
I don't think we actually get debates... it's just the wrong term for what happens when candidates face off to discuss policy.
Perhaps my definition is too narrow, but I always thought a "debate" was when two sides, each with opposing views on a particular topic, would share and compare arguments advocating for their respective positions. I thought a debate was a structured affair with more or less equal time to make uninterrupted points and to offer salient rebuttals. I also thought a basic tenet of debate was that you had to support your perspective with generally well-vetted facts.
Anyone who more or less agrees with this definition of a debate would likely conclude that we don't really have Presidential debates. We have Presidential "squabbles", characterized by personal attacks and petty innuendo. Each side cherry picks facts and shares them out of context, each side usually exaggerates (or even lies) when convenient, and each side expends as much energy denigrating the other's character as they do critiquing their arguments.
What is really sad is that this is the formula that seems most effective in swaying voter opinion. Many of us essentially vote for the squabbler most capable of witty comebacks and contemporaneous slander. These are probably not the best criteria for identifying competent leadership.
My preference would be for the voters to identify the issues that are most important to them in any given election, and then see a series of short debates that focus on one issue each time. For example, this year we might have had short debate on economic policy, followed by a short debate on border control, followed by other short debates on the climate or guns or abortion.
Such single topic debates would elucidate where the candidates agree and where they differ. Importantly, with only one topic to cover, the debaters would have the time to "explain" their plans rather than just "refer" to them. They could also cite the sources of their information and fact checkers on each side could participate in the rebuttals using referenced sources.
This would yield useful information to help voters determine which candidate's policies are most aligned with their personal priorities. Seems like a better plan than circulating memes on social media...
Excellent, Dennis. I did not watch. The "debates" are just cheap theatrics. Maybe no real need for debate, just a clear one page statement on the candidate's position. "Here is my position on X. Here are the Y reasons I believe that this is the proper policy. Here are the Z initiatives that I would try to enact to make the policy a reality." Take it or leave it. Not sure people would care. Seems to be more about personality.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your opinion Dennis. I fully agree that presidential debates have lost their sense of purpose and professionalism, but it is no coincidence that this has happened since Trump has been at the podium. When dealing with a perpetual liar and narcissist who speaks in a stream of consciousness, constantly feels the need to make himself look good, and has no respect for the rules of debate, it is hard to keep the debate on topic. The moderators did a great job trying to keep to the schedule, address the topics at hand on-by-one, and keep Trump in line, but it was like dealing with a 78-year old (emotion-driven) child. In my opinion, Kamala also did a great job holding it together and staying presidential in response to his ludicrous lies and insinuations. Instead, she used his tirades to reinforce her key messages. As a former attorney general and lawyer, she is a well-experienced debater. Of course, she did goad him with personal insults, which I generally do not like, but I am sure she would not have done so with any other rational candidate. With someone like Trump, this was a clever political tactic to use his weaknesses against him. The contrast between them could not have been greater.
ReplyDeleteI like your idea of short debates on single topics, but I don‘t think it is realistic. They have too little free time on the campaign trail, and both candidates have to agree to do each debate. Hence, they could pick and choose which topics interested them more. In this presidential debate, they did not know the questions beforehand, although they could anticipate the key issues. Also, the candidates were given time for one or two rebuttals, but since Trump could not stay on topic and just kept babbling away over his time allotment, it was not always possible for Kamala to reply to his comments, which was unfortunate. However, when she could respond, she did well not to address all of his ludicrous statements. She controlled herself and did not take the bait as he did, which served her well. 😘
Presidential debates have been a farce for as long as I can remember, certainly long before Trump put his imprint on them. He may be the example we all point to, but I have never seen a candidate from either side stay on the “high road” while trying to respond pertinently to the questions. Candidates treat the event like a press interview where they can repeat and emphasize any sound bite they choose; the questions don’t matter. The candidates, their parties, the networks, and the voters are all guilty of not demanding better.
Delete