The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)
The trouble with our debates
Although I am not an expert on debates, I am the world’s leading authority on what bothers me almost more than anything else about modern-day politics: Debates.
I’ve watched them while eating at a Simsbury restaurant, cajoling with campaign workers in Hartford and sitting in my pajamas at home in Avon. Why do I dislike them so much? Three reasons, basically:
One, despite the fact that there are rules, most debate participants seem not to even try to abide by them, and few viewers seem particularly concerned to know what they are.
Two, there are no methods to determine an irrefutable winner. Democrats will always say the Democratic candidate won, and Republicans will always say the Republican candidate won, regardless of what was said on stage, the clarity with which it was presented, and the behavior and demeanor of the speaker.
Three, the panel of questioners is usually made up not of experts on American history, domestic and international problems, and constitutional law, but by media pundits and personalities. They may be smart, presentable and recognizable — but they are also television stars who put as much stock in ratings as they do in the intellect, credibility and persuasion skills of the candidates.
Debates should not be about ratings. There are just four more Democratic debates scheduled prior to the party’s national convention in July. Three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate are also on the schedule before November’s general election. So we’re coming to the end of the cycle, and since I can’t stand debates, that’s fine with me. But Donald Trump will be gone one day, and things will likely return to normal. Unfortunately, normal in the case of presidential politics means abnormal debates — abnormal because candidates on a debate stage can do almost anything they’d like and still be called winners or losers depending on who’s watching.
In one popular book on debating, the authors say that debate, perhaps the most venerable activity in the history of civil discourse, is characterized by calm, orderly discussions.
How often do modern presidential debates in America seem calm and orderly?
The ancient Roman statesman and orator Cicero offered three primary obligations that apply — or at least should apply — to modern debates: to be clear on behalf of the audience’s understanding, to be interesting so that the audience will remain engaged, and to be persuasive so that the most open and reasonable of minds can be changed.
Over the last few cycles, presidential debates have been marked by personal insults, flimsy facts, interruptions, no penalties for abusing pre-established time limits and plenty of other free-forall folly.
According to experts, qualities of an ideal debater include (but are not limited to) the ability to organize ideas, cogently abridge one’s thoughts, evaluate evidence, see logical connections on the spot, speak convincingly, avoid jargon and clichés and stand straight without being stiff.
Granted, it isn’t easy. But it’s important, for being a good debater is often a requisite for being a good world leader. And it’s because it’s not easy that choosing a winner is so important for the voting public.
In another popular book on the topic, the authors state that judges of a debate should be people who can “consider who has taken the strongest position with the best supporting facts.” There can be no ties, they say. “A winner is always chosen.”
That doesn’t happen in modern debates. Today there are those who ask the questions, those who debate and those who watch on TV. That’s it. There are no separate panels of expert judges. The true winners will never go down in the history books as the true winners. That’s a shame, for there’s value in knowing what makes for a winning debate for the sake of our future politicians, voters and citizens.
Today there are those who ask the questions, those who debate and those who watch on TV. That’s it. There are no separate panels of expert judges.
As for those who ask the questioners, why must they be from television, radio and the print media? They should instead be historians and presidential scholars. How about someone like author Michael Beschloss, who has been involved with the White House Historical Association, the National Archives Foundation, the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History and others. Or presidential biographer Jon Meacham, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his book on Andrew Jackson and had been selected to be the official biographer of George H. W. Bush? Or Jeffrey Engel, founding director of the SMU Center for Presidential History. Doris Kearns Goodwin, Douglass Brinkley and Drew Gilpin Faust also come to mind, all of whom have devoted their professional lives to the intricacies of presidential ability and decision-making.
Here’s the problem: if there were a decisive set of rules to maintain order, a group of judges tasked with selecting a publicly announced winner and a group of scholarly experts to ask the questions, the networks would have a harder time than ever before getting people to watch. Why? Because there’d be no fireworks. No free-for-all. Fewer familiar faces. It would be boring. As a society we depend far too much on fireworks. Too many viewers may not know what to make of the fact that they’re watching in their pajamas in front of someone as distinguished as Michael Beschloss and Doris Kearns Goodwin.
After all, no one minds wearing pajamas in front of Lester Holt.