I part with the Moderator-in-Chief on the issue of debates. Modern American politics does not now have debates. We have co-located policy briefings with a brief media availability segment. Add in a dollop of musty nostalgia and a misplaced belief that there is public service in giving platforms to politicians and we have a format perfectly suited to serve the campaigns, not voters.
A buffer zone is always expected and mandated between candidates, so when they “clash” — ie a debate breaks out — this is considered news in and of itself quite apart of the content of the conflict. Still, I cannot recall much of significance to arise from a political debate since “I’m paying for this microphone” — and that was directed at a moderator and not another candidate.
Candidates are salesmen, not sweatbox interrogators. Let’s stop pretending they want to interact with each other beyond the most banal and unrevealing banter. When I want to buy a car I do not round up a handful of car salesmen, stick them behind a dias at the Best Western and ask, “Why should I buy your car?” Instead, I drill down serially, fact-check, and discount for personality.
Further, it is no accident that the most telling information to fall from a debate this cycle resulted from Charlie Gibson going all Sam Donaldson on Obama on the topic of capgains. HRC needn’t have been in the room for that happen. For all intents and purposes that could been an hour-long candidate press conference.
Here’s another iron law of debates that is routinely violated at the state and local level: Unless there is a transcript, there is no debate. What you have then is after-dinner speaking, fine as a diversion from the time-share salesman at your table but otherwise of no lasting political significance.
Finally, two more words on debates: Alan Keyes.
