Rethinking Debates

The ABC Democratic Party Primary debate yesterday evening was quite a spectacle. It represented the nadir of the primary debate season thus far and should be a signal to dispense with them altogether (as presently constructed). ABC's moderators spent a considerable amount of time revisiting the many dust-ups on the Democratic campaign trail. I don't mind that moderators Gibson and Stephanopoulos aggressively pursued their questions. That was certainly fair. But that so much time was focused on tabloid trash was unworthy of a so-called news corporation. John Stewart noted astutely this evening that asking questions about statements taken out of context to such an extent was his job.

How debates are conducted ought to be re-imagined. The purpose of the debate is to question the candidates on their platforms. Certainly, they should be cross-examined thoroughly on them. But they should focus on issues that matter, on domestic and foreign affairs and their respective positions. The debate should be structured in a manner radically different from its present incarnations.

First, who should produce and host the debates? Should it be left in the hands of networks who exclude candidates because they do not gain a certain percentage of the vote. Moreover, given Gibson and Stephanopoulos' performance last night and that of previous hosts of other networks, it is clear their goal is to to provide information entertainment. Should debates be organized by C-Span or some non-partisan, publicly funded entity to organize and host debates. Under this paradigm, any candidate who has not left the race can still participate and raise issues.

Second, and apropos to the first point, who should be the moderators? If we follow the principle that the candidates should be cross-examined on their positions and platforms, should they not be questioned by experts on a variety of issues dealing with economics, immigrations etc..., rather than the steady slew of interrogatories aimed at silly issues that we witnessed yesterday night.

Third, debates should be structured in a manner more akin to the 2004 presidential debates between Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush. Where for example, one debate focused on foreign affairs, and another on domestic issues (I confess I don't recall what the third focused on). However given the length of the primary season and the ability to have more debates, the debates topics can be more narrowed. For instance, any given debate can focus on a discrete issue, i.e. the Iraq War, energy independence, the economy, illegal immigration and border security, terrorism, etc...Of course there will be overlap on various subject matters, but the primary topic can still remain focused on.

With the general accessibility of debates on You Tube, individuals who miss a given debate can catch them online.

New alternatives need to be considered to have a proper debate on the important issues of the day. Unfortunately, last night's debate represented the overwhelming failure of the present situation.