 |
| At first Presidential debates seemed like a good idea until in 2016 they lapsed into the theatre of the absurd |
ABSURD RULES OF PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
Editor’s Note: This
essay first appeared July 14, 2016 in New America Weekly, a publication of New
America, an independent foundation and think tank. New America from its webpage
www.newamerica.org shares its content with the public and blogs such as
the one you are on now. The essay was
originally titled #FIXTHEDEBATES
GUEST BLOG / By John Donvan and Dana
Wolfe**As
individuals who know a thing or two about debates, we have two observations
regarding the so-called presidential debates. One will be painfully obvious,
while the other might seem a bit of a head scratcher – at first.
The obvious:
since 1980, the presidential debates have never failed to disappoint. They’re
awful.
The
headscratcher: those every-four-year events could be a lot better if they were
run according to the time-honored “Oxford style” format.
Why, if the
latter is true, do we so readily accept the former? Because the ultimate
arbiters of the debate rules have always been the candidates themselves – or
their agents.
Yes, a
Commission on Presidential Debates exists to sponsor, manage and set the terms
for the quadrennial events. But the CPD officially answers only to the
Republican and Democratic parties, which co-invented the CPD as a political
duopoly in 1987. Jointly, the parties appoint its members, some of whom have
served decades.
To be sure,
most of these appointees have sought to fulfil the mission to mount debates
that “provide the best information.” In practice, however, the shape of the
CPD-sponsored debates has to be renegotiated every four years with the
candidates of the moment, who also happen to wield a significant ace card: if one
of them doesn’t like the rules, he or she can refuse to play.
Don’t think
this is an idle threat. Pre-CPD, both Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush dropped
out of debates when they didn’t like the setup.
This is why
the debates are so “un-debate-like.” Candidates seek to turn them into
90-minute campaign ads, stripped of risk, spontaneity and, most critically,
anything close to an intellectual joust. In years past, candidates have
successfully imposed the following self-serving strictures on debates, among
many others:
--a requirement that the debaters
address only the moderator directly, but never each other
--a rule forbidding follow-up
questions to any point made
--a blackout on showing facial
reactions by an audience obliged to remain silent
--extremely narrow time limits on
discourse, including 2-minute responses to questions asked by a moderator, and
rebuttal periods as short as 15 seconds
That list
shows why the rhetoric on the debate stage always feels so pre-cooked. It is
that way by design. The candidates go in with pre-written scripts in their
heads – the kind that run two minutes or less (that is, short enough to
memorize) – and then make damn sure to deliver on those scripts -- and nothing else -- unhindered by
challenge or interruption from an opponent, a moderator, audience reaction or
the relevance of what they’re saying to the question that was asked. In short,
actually debating is the last thing they want to do. And so, they don’t.
But debates
should be for voters, not the candidates, which is why we’re launching an
initiative urging the adoption of the Oxford style format for the presidential
debates this fall. More than 1.5 million people have already watched our
#FixTheDebates video, which explains the urgency of our campaign and what
“Oxford-style” means.
The Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz2P4pzerPU
The “Oxford
style” would change the debate game dramatically. In an Oxford debate, the
opponents are required to prove something. Constructed around timed rounds with
both formal statements and robust interaction, the format hinges on a specific
motion – an assertion – which the opposing sides argue for and against.
For example,
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would take opposite sides on a motion like
“Give Undocumented Immigrants a Path to Citizenship.” Or: “The U.S. Intervenes
Abroad too Often.” Consider how much we would learn about the candidates’
worldviews, their ability to marshal both logic and facts, their powers of
persuasion and skill at thinking on their feet -- if they were willing to
debate this way. Imagine three such motions covered in a ninety-minute debate,
and what that could reveal about who these people would be in office.
Okay, we
know that’s a mountain of an “if.” No doubt, that kind of debate will be scary
to risk-averse candidates who would now really have to know what they were debating
about.
On the other
hand, they could take some comfort, going in, from already knowing the
questions being asked, because they would all be contained in the motions. And
then, we wonder, might they be responsive to the idea of doing “Oxford style”
if – who knows? – our petition keeps picking up signatures? To us, it’s
interesting that a younger demographic – one all politicians covet – is finding
our message via social media. They also make up a majority of the downloaders
of the podcast we produce – a podcast that is comprised of nothing but debate
in the Oxford style. This tells us that
they want substance. So do we. Let’s
keep asking for it. #FixTheDebates
ABOUT THE
AUTHORS**
John Donvan
is the host and moderator of the Intelligence Squared U.S. debate series.
Dana Wolfe
is the founding executive producer of the Intelligence Squared U.S. debate
series. Since 2006 IQ2US has produced over 120 debates available at www.iq2us.org.
ABOUT NEW
AMERICA
New America is
a think tank and civic enterprise committed to renewing American politics,
prosperity, and purpose in the Digital Age. We generate big ideas, bridge the
gap between technology and policy, and curate broad public conversation.
Structurally, we combine the best of a policy research institute, technology
laboratory, public forum, media platform, and a venture capital fund for ideas.
We are a distinctive community of thinkers, writers, researchers,
technologists, and community activists who believe deeply in the possibility of
American renewal. www.newamerica.org
No comments:
Post a Comment