|
To begin with, I'd like to point out something that should be obvious to even the most casual student of history. Ideas and political movements do not suddenly appear on the scene, mature and wildly popular. They begin as fringe ideas espoused by visionaries (otherwise known as "radicals", "loony-toons" and/or "minorities"), who work years or decades or even centuries before the idea is adopted by the culture. For example, the first anti-slavery society in United States was formed in 1775; but we did not elect an anti-slavery Presidential candidate until 1860, and the 13th Amendment was not adopted until 1865.
It does a huge disservice to the country to try and develop a primary debate system that excludes new or unpopular ideas, or candidates who have not (yet) made the "top tier".
Yes, the current system of "debates" is a farce. Dumbing complex issues down until they are "yes or no" questions and demanding that candidates "raise their hand" if they support a catch phrase is criminally irresponsible. But there are other ways to improve the debates than to limit the number of participants. Some suggestions:
1.) Limit the debate to a single, specific topic. Why not have one debate on Iraq policy. One debate on energy policy. One debate on education. Etc., etc., etc. (Some of us are old enough to remember when this was common practice.)
2.) Actually use a debate format. Don't ever allow candidates to have an entire "debate" which is limited to statements which cannot refer to any of the other candidates.
3.) Have longer debates and more of them.
4.) Candidates: use the debates to explain your plans. Instead of trying to convince us you look the most Presidential by having the most polished performance, why don't you try looking the most Presidential by explaining your proposed policies. Instead of telling us in a sincere way that you support the troops (who doesn't, besides Smirk?), why not explain exactly how you're going to get us out of Iraq. Why we need to start leaving when you think we should start leaving, not earlier or later. How long the operation should take. How your plan keeps the troops from being in greater harm and Iraq from melting down even worse.
5.) Candidates: restrain your challenges/attacks to matters of substance. If the candidate on your right has a health care proposal that will bankrupt the country - - say that. And back up your contention. I know the temptation is great to focus on landing the perfect zinger that will live forever - - the new "You're no Jack Kennedy". But you know what? The guy who said "You're no Jack Kennedy" lost his race by a landslide.
6.) Have old fashioned internet debates. Have the same policy question sent to all the candidates and post them at a private website. Give the candidates 24 hours to send in any rebuttals they feel are necessary. Then publish all the answers on a public website. Candidates are allowed to link back to information on their own website, like "as I explain in detail in my education plan (link to education plan)".
7.) Candidates: Update your campaign website so that it contains actual content. Your facebook links and iPod lists are cool and all, but how about posting - - in detail as well as in summary - - your plan to stop global warming?
8.) Have new fashioned internet debates. Video streaming allows the candidates to debate each other from anywhere on the planet.
9.) Find actual frigging moderators for the debates. Find people who understand the point of these debates is not to catch the candidates with the kind of "gotcha!" questions that will be talked about in DC cocktail party circles for years - - nor is it to pitch you endless softballs. If you can't find a journalist with the integrity of Walter Cronkite, hire the country's top speech and debate teacher to do the honors. You're not supposed to need a "star" journalist to draw viewers. The candidates are supposed to be the draw.
10.) Work toward 100% public financing of elections, with a great deal more free air time for each candidate. Level the playing field so every qualified person has a chance to reach the Oval Office - - and so your favorite candidate will still be able to run even if the big money donors dump him/her in favor of your least favorite Democrat ever...
|