Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Substance v. Style: Is There a Better Way to Debate?
Is there a better way to have a political debate? After watching the first part of last night’s debate on Fox, then switching off the video to listen along with Ricochet’s chat feed, I was struck by its disorderliness.
The interviewer-driven Q&A style is confusing. Granted, the debate had to involve ten candidates, and it was only fair that each was given time to make their case. But the haphazard format made it nearly impossible for me to get a good read on any of them. With a format like this — and this has been true ever since Nixon and Kennedy had at it — wit and charm trump substance. For example, although I was impressed with Rubio, I’m still not sure what he proposes to do to spark small business development.
There’s an alternative, one that’s been around since the Greeks. The candidates could debate each other directly, with the media in the background. One way would be to follow the modified rules of inter-collegiate policy debate. Suppose each candidate had 15 minutes to state his or her case. Each then had 10 minutes to cross-examine his or her opponent. The media then had ten minutes to ask questions; each candidate then had five minutes for rebuttal and three for surrebuttal. The end.
What are the advantages (as collegiate debaters might say) to this format?
First, it would require the candidates to clash, to use the formal term. Cross-examination assures a robust argument because the candidate must prepare not only advance to his own position, but to defend it against his opponent’s best arguments. Eloquence would be redefined: There would be less “Boy, he sounded good,” and more “Goodness, she knows what she’s talking about.”
Second, the candidates would have to master brevity. For most politicians, a quarter of an hour isn’t much time for a major speech. But a candidate who failed to get his message across in 15 minutes would reveal he hadn’t done enough research to understand the issue, or never thought the matter through. It’s vital that a president to do this work before taking office; he or she won’t have time afterward. It’s crucial for the electorate to learn enough from a debate to judge whether the man or woman it might put in the White House really knows what he or she would do, why, and whether the country would benefit from it.
Third, this would discipline the media. If three reporters participate, each would have only slightly more than three minutes to ask questions. They would be unable to derail the debate by injecting themselves into it. (See Candy Crowley, if you must.) They would have fewer opportunities to express their own ideology or attempt to discredit a candidate. They would have to prepare just as carefully as the politicians and choose questions that get to the point.
The focus would be on the candidates. It would be more akin to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, among the best studies in rhetoric and political argumentation in American history. Lincoln and Douglas had no choice but to prepare, be concise, and exhibit the character we should expect from our leaders. It could elevate political discourse to a far higher level than we could ever obtain with the contemporary atomistic debate format.
What are the disadvantages, as as collegiate debaters might say? Could it work? If not, what might work better?
Published in Elections, General, Politics
I know what you mean.
Some years ago I was part of a Freedomworks volunteer lobbing team that was dispatched to Tallahassee to work the legislators.
In Florida the legislature only meets for about 60 days per year. State legislators term-limited to eight consecutive years. There is no limit on total number of terms.
Term-limits forces a certain amount of turnover in the legislature. It also creates openings in the leadership as senior legislators are term-limited out.
It so happened that in that year that the then current speaker had encountered his term-limit and was unable to run again, which created a vacancy in speakership in the following year. By the time we arrived in Tallahassee Marco Rubio had already been elected to the speakership for the next year.
To be clear, my little group was a collection of nobodies who’s mission was to see as many legislators as we could and explain Freedomworks’ position on four particular bills on which Freedomworks had a viewpoint. (Freedomworks lobbies to increase economic liberty. Each of these bills–in some way–either constrained the citizens options or increased their economic liberty to purchase as they please.)
At some point we were offered to meet the speaker-elect, Marco Rubio. We were led to a conference room and, after a short wait, Marco entered the room.
It was a short meeting. I don’t recall much of what he said. But I do clearly recall the impression Marco made on me.
First, his youth. Maybe I’m just getting older, but he seemed rather young to be the next speaker.
Second, and I don’t know how to put this into words, but he emanated a poise and self-assurance that made him seem like a natural leader. I could see the intelligence in his eyes. I understood why this young man’s peers would choose him to be their leader.
So, Claire, I agree. Marco has “it”.
I spent as much time listening to the FOX trio as to the candidates. And the FOX trio seemed at times to get in the way.
Let the #1 and the #10 debate and see if there is a means to pick a winner.
Let the # 2 and the #9 debate and see if there is a means to pick a winner.
Pit the winners in similar debates and winnow the field down to a few people.
No questioners other than the other debater.
Rubio reminds me of Tony Blair. A lot.
This means he has the disadvantage of reminding me how much I distrust sheer eloquence, command of language, and youthfulness as a basis for choosing political leadership. It also reminds me that in a democracy these things can be very, very powerful tools for a politician to have.
So what about Rubio’s record apart from these things? On its own merits, it does not put him at the top of my list: a first-term Senator, imperfect judgment on the most substantive issue he tried to tackle in national office. But it’s not disqualifying; he knows his stuff and is right on most issues.
Walker has more potential as president. He will not be easily hoodwinked by Schumer or anyone else. He knows how to work with a legislature. He could win. Rubio could win bigger.
The part that’s missing, though, is the direct and immediate give and take of challenges to their ideas. Long discourse is great and useful, but sometimes it’s just sophistry, and without challenge it can be difficult to distinguish. So the necessity of handling substantive criticism in real time is also great and useful. That’s what makes Ricochet so much better than NRO or other websites: the opportunity for give and take and for hearing the best of all sides of an argument. Not only is that good in itself, it will also sharpen our guys for battle with the other guys.
Yes, and these don’t even need to be costly productions. The RNC can produce the series of debates relatively cheaply and either offer it to news outlets for sale or simply release the series to anyone who wants to view them. Certainly have them all available online at the RNC.
Of course there also needs to be genuine conflict as the subject of debate for it to be worth much of anything. It wouldn’t do to have each debater agree that he loves America, apple pie, and wants to see more jobs for the middle class.
Perhaps we can have a list of propositions reflecting differing views within the party and then let the candidates volunteer for one side or the other. Perhaps candidates can suggest propositions to be debated.
In order to process all the candidates efficiently perhaps they can do team debates Intelligence Squared style.
To winnow the field, perhaps they can set several target dates during the season and then limit it to the top six candidates above a certain percentage in the polls or above a certain delegate count once voting actually starts.
Is that what happens during presidential debates?
No, but the suggestion is that it should happen.
YouTube would do the trick. If there are other websites that also might be used (and I don’t have a clue about that), so much the better.
Canada solved the problem awhile back, as I point out with actual Gorilla In The Mist footage.
Ahem.
Like Ad Infinitum.
I think that an extemp debate format would work best. Everybody gives a 7 minute speech on the same topic and they get to cross examine each other. You do 1 topic a night until you get through all the topics.
This would be more entertaining and interesting. Also, a bidding war to get to debate would be unfair but fun to watch.
What? The most important issues to voters in presidential elections are always, The Economy, National Security, The Debt, and Are You Mean to Girls on Twitter.
I hadn’t thought about the propositions approach. It’s a great idea. In college debate we were given one prop to debate throughout the season. There were some pretty arcane arguments over “topicality,” i.e., the issue of whether the affirmative team had strayed from the resolution. I wouldn’t want to hear much of that in a presidential debate. However, having a resolution–I’d say one chosen by a third party–would force the candidates to stick to the issue. Maybe an impartial judge could call foul when a candidate launch off into some irrelevant or unrelated argument.
Of course the problem is finding an impartial judge.
politicians of the United states have little or no knowledge of actual ‘debate’. for all their ignorance, politicians are infinitely more familiar with the concept that ‘citizens’. In the US, a ‘debate’ is a timed affair where each person steps forward, accepts a question, and then twists it to allow the response to simply be another political slogan, already canned and practiced. what should be a time for the exchange of ideas and information of the electorate, is instead reduced to slightly longer political advertisements.
“Hope & Change” is a meaningless phrase, even more so that “Forward” but, both fit on a bumper sticker far easier than, “Eliminate the repatriation tax so that large, multinational corporations and bring their wealth back the this country. Offering jobs as well as less expensive products for the citizens.” sadly, few people know what a ‘Repatriation Tax’ IS much less what it has to do with jobs. They don’t understand that even if all a rich man does is fritter away his wealth, he is still providing jobs for others. the “luxury” tax imposed by Clinton on ‘yachts’ was quietly rescinded a few years later when it was understood that rich people simply bought and moored their boats elsewhere. the people truly paying the tax were the craftsmen who no longer had jobs. That fact and the simple fact that it generated no revenue, persuaded Clinton to quietly repeal that tax a few years later.
Actually Bush is the one who created that tax. This was part of the broken “no new taxes” promise that lost him his job. It was repealed under Clinton.
One more suggestion: consider audio-only debates. I get pretty miffed hearing everyone fretting over how the candidates appear or how smart or dumb it was to smile at minute 22 or how tired Candidate X looks. I realize text only won’t fly, but nothing wrong with radio and podcast broadcasting at least for the primaries.
I’d actually be OK with a little text-only in the mix, if someone could pull it off.
Let’s have a back-and-forth written out between Paul and Christie on the NSA, between Christie and Huckabee on entitlements, between Walker and Kasich on Medicaid, and so on. Let them each write out their initial proposition and a rebuttal.
Yes, it would be largely written by advisers and yes, there’s a benefit to getting the initial verbal reaction — a greater measure of honesty, if only inadvertently so. But there’s nothing wrong with a format that puts things in writing and measures actual positions rather than who’s quickest on his feet.
Or…There could be 4 simultaneously going forums all about different policy. Candidates could go to any forum. Then they would switch until they had gone to all the forums. 4 people max in a forum. Higher in the polls gets right of first refusal. There could be a split screen, multiple channels or something like red zone.
Rico-Chat!
A Presidential Essay contest!!
I Know What You Did During The Republican Primary Last Summer.
But first we need a P.E. class.