First, here's my perspective, told through three blog posts. The first, titled The Comic Book Debate, painfully re-lived one of the 2015 Republican presidential debates. After noting how rare it is for me to agree with a bunch of Rs, I said
...according to CNBC, this debate featured "the best team in business" and it was "the first debate focused on Your Money, Your Vote" - you know, tough economic issues like the shrinking global economy, growing national debt, beaten-down middle class and all that...Got it -- great team of moderators, great topic. And then, the first question.
This series of debates is essentially a job interview with the American people. And in any job interview, you know this: you get asked "what's your biggest weakness?" So in 30 seconds, without telling us that you try to hard or that you're a perfectionist (cue the giggles), what's your biggest weakness and what are you doing to address it?The second question ended with "Let's be honest. Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?" It got worse, leaving me at the end to note
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- we deserve so much more... and so much better.About a year later, I addressed a post to the Commission on Presidential Debates, suggesting that It's Not Too Late to Fix Things. My concerns were not a whole lot different this time.
While I appreciate to some extent the benefits of having a famous name and face or two sitting at the moderator's desk for the Presidential debates... we have seen this year a continuation of the moderators getting in the way, interjecting themselves and their interest in 'getting a story' into the debates, rather than facilitating the conversation in an objective manner.I acknowledged that Donald Trump had been treated badly by the moderators (and I'll add today, that helped him win the election). I also said
It's clear that we have no opportunity to fix the candidates our political parties bestowed upon us this year, but we do have an opportunity to fix the debates so that they are more effective in educating the voting public on where the candidates stand on important issues, and significantly less focused... on sharing the candidates' respective baggage.I had a bunch of ideas to make it better. In addition to obvious stuff like using trained debate moderators, not media talking heads; shutting off microphones when the candidates go beyond their allotted time, etc., candidates would be forced to talk about their own policies, not the other guy's or the other gal's. I even suggested that fully-vetted minor party candidates - those offering the breadth and depth of policy positions that we'd expect from the major party candidates - also be allowed to participate. Crazy stuff, I know.
My frustration grew last year watching the Dem debates, leading to another post focusing on Immigration Questions I Wish I Had Heard. Here's the problem with the debate I had watched, which covered a lot of topics, but not well. Mostly, having the candidates attack each other's positions and statements
makes for good theater, and it gives pundits a whole lot of material to work with, but does it help a voter understand where the candidates stand? Can we ever learn that, when they have one minute to not only respond to the question, but to get in how their own stance differs from the one that drove the initial question? And to deliver a notable quotable, if they've got one handy?And here's what I proposed as a possible solution.
I would much rather hear real discussion on key topics, with 30 minutes or more set aside to have a real debate about the issues that matter. The candidates can be made aware of the topics in advance, but obviously not the questions, so everyone can be prepared for a robust discussion. That's right, a discussion - not an argument or dissection of resumes.I outlined very specific questions on immigration that would have allowed us to understand where each of the candidates stand on key issues, including DREAMers, a border barrier, the e-Verify system, and more. The benefits of this go beyond helping us understand where the Dems stand, though.
... it will give everyone a chance to see, with their own eyes, that what the president says the Democrats want, and what they really want, are likely very different animals entirely.
I think this is one of the only ways they will be able to counter his insane tweets and blatant lies. It will also give pollsters a chance to craft good questions for people, and see where the country really stands.So, now you know where I'm coming from on this issue; here's Van Susteren's take on things.
Presidential debates are supposed to provide voters with a better understanding of a candidate’s views and how he or she would likely govern. Of course, if you think the job of the president is to make short, snappy decisions without consulting others and without examining all the pros and cons, then the existing debate format probably suits you. If, on the other hand, you think the job of the president is problem-solving, then the debate ought to be exactly that — a problem-solving test.
... If we don’t want the Oval Office to operate like Twitter, why do we test our candidates as if it does? (emphasis added)YAY! A kindred spirit, even if she's from the other side of the aisle! Her approach is very similar to mine but goes further. I suggested giving the candidates the topics, and allowing them to prepare - but she takes it even a little bit further. Here's how she'd handle moderator duty.
...three days in advance, I would supply the candidates with a series of identical, fact-based problem scenarios. These scenarios would relate to real issues facing the United States — such as health care, infrastructure, Iran, North Korea, climate change or cyber warfare. Candidates would consider how to respond to the scenarios; they could consult with advisers and arrive at the debate with a (hopefully) workable solution.She notes that we could still get canned answers, but I think we'd know spot them right away, compared to others who were taking this format seriously. She also points out that being able to consult with their teams would be a good thing, not a bad thing.
...what would look like “cheating” in the context of a take-home exam is akin to real-life governing. No one wants a president who acts without the benefit of being surrounded by subject-matter experts and trusted advisers.Van Susteren notes, as did I, the benefits of hearing the candidates answer the same detailed question, and
because the questions would not flit from subject to subject, there would be more ability to test the quality of candidates’ thinking. The presidential hopefuls would be required to describe how they had arrived at their approach, explain how it might be achieved and outline the potential consequences.Moderators would be there to "...press the participants, politely but repeatedly, on the feasibility of their proposals." Getting things done if there's a divided Congress, or concerns about our allies and whether they'll go along with us are just a couple of probing questions she suggested could be asked.
The reasoning behind her plan is perfectly valid, even if it does attack the Dems on policy.
This format would inhibit a candidate’s ability to promise free college, Medicare-for-all and a tax increase only on billionaires — all to be magically approved by a Republican-controlled Senate — then have the time clock go off and everyone move on to trade policy....Admitting, as I did, that there's more one way to make debates better, her bottom line and mine are the same:
If we want better outcomes in Washington, we must change the vetting process for how our presidents get there.Hear, hear. Maybe we can figure this out by the time we come out of the nomination conventions...
