Why have “controlled” debates at all? Curt Anderson, in today’s WSJ, suggests that we just let the candidates debate each other whenever and wherever they like.
The Republican Party should be looking forward instead of backward—and seeking every opportunity to feature its roster of excellent candidates, rather than trying to find ways to constrict the field. The voters will do that, as is their prerogative. The simple truth is that competitive primaries usually make a party stronger, not weaker.
It’s also true that whenever the smart guys in Washington get together and try to shortcut the democratic process by imposing a candidate from the top down, it generally goes poorly. Whatever happened to the idea of freedom? Or democracy? Or robust argument? As a Republican, I wonder: When did we start fearing debates? And if we do fear debates, what business do we have trying to win elections?
Here’s a wild and controversial idea: Trust the voters. Let candidates debate whenever and wherever they want. Don’t try to control the process from Washington. Let freedom ring.
I think this is just right. All the candidates want air time now, and mini-debates under terms acceptable to the participants are a great way to get media coverage. Those debates could be in any format that people agree, from reality TV, to cage fighting.
You don’t need to have official membership in a terror group to be a terrorist. Why do you need the RNC or a news network to approve before you have a live argument with another candidate for President?
Image Credit: By Rosser1954 at en.wikipedia (Transferred from en.wikipedia by SreeBot) [Public domain or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons