"Simple Solutions to a Persistent Problem Part One: The Debates"

Simple Solutions to a Persistent Problem

Part One: The Debates

By: J. Hunter

Current GOP Presidential Field (pic1)

 Perhaps there is a kind of irony to (or futility in) pleading for change among a people who pride themselves on their adherence to tradition, but over the next two weeks, I will plead anyway. It is no secret that there is a disconnect between what polls suggest about Republican satisfaction with the current field of presidential nominees, and reality. Before Texas governor, Rick Perry entered the fray, there were many right-wingers poking with a fork at candidates like Congressman Michele Bachmann as if she were road kill on a dinner plate—fearing that unless filet mignon arrived soon, they would have to take the inevitable first bite. Now that Perry has arrived—undercooked and oversold, like 2008’s great conservative hope, Senator Fred Thompson—Republicans are once again reticent to dig in. What we want is a reliable standard bearer who can beat the stumbling, yet rich and eloquent, incumbent president. What we have is a mob of conservatives who appear, thus far, to be unelectable, and a frontrunner in Mitt Romney who can win, but is not reliably conservative.

New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, gave Romney a coveted, glowing endorsement earlier this week. Christie, himself, regarded among Republicans as a Reagan-like figure who can save an uninspiring GOP, had to decline to run for president almost twenty times before Republicans finally got the message—another clear signal to the current field of Republican candidates that the electorate is not pleased.  With the specter of 2008 fresh in our minds, an election year where many Republicans unenthusiastically voted John McCain for president, conservative voters would like to plot a new course—a more productive course. The persistent problem is, campaigns and primaries do not always produce the best candidates—nominees who represent the style, intellect and mood of the primary electorate. The solutions to this problem are so clear and so seemingly obvious that I am amazed that they have yet to be implemented.

Solution One: Replace the Current “Sound-byte Debate Forums” with “Substantive Debates”

Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan (pic2)

Virtually every election year, voters must endure debates where snowmen ask questions or moderators force candidates to present complex policy solutions in 30 seconds. The campaign is not much of a campaign at all—commentators spend the week between debates discussing the “good lines” from the prior debate and each subsequent debate reveals less about a candidate’s worldview (what voters care about) and more about his ability to quip (what talking heads care about).

This point was expertly made by Grover Norquist, Fred Barnes and Dr. Lee Edwards at a Heritage Foundation lecture about an elucidating debate between Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr.[1] Buckley and Reagan, two “Titans of Conservatism” shared a disagreement about foreign policy—the consequence of selling the Panama Canal. There were no cheap jabs meant to harm the opponent personally, or demure his reputation. There were no foolish comments shouted out from the back of the room that ended up detracting from the conversation. The two men, who differed in opinion, simply put forth their ideas and enlightened the audience as they wrestled.

American Enterprise Institute Logo (pic3)

In order to ensure better Republican debates, Barnes suggested (and I agree) that the debates need to be taken from cable news networks. Eliminate Fox or CNN debates. Cable news outlets are interested, first and foremost, in earning ratings—not in promoting productive debates. They feed on scandal, turmoil and drama—not ideas. Instead, organizations like think tanks, universities, special interest groups or citizen clubs should host debates. For Republicans, the debates should be held by conservative organizations, to ensure that the issues that conservatives care about will be front and center.

In a year like this, with so many candidates running, we could employ a lottery system so that two candidates could square off and focus on one or two issues. They would have ample time to develop ideas and better introduce themselves to the people who will be voting for them. They could address each other and show off their knowledge and depth. Everyone, voters and candidates, would benefit from these exchanges.

Given the unanimous support for an idea like this—support that I have admittedly only gauged anecdotally—I am very surprised that the debate format has not changed. While it is true that ratings for such a format would probably be low, the audience for whom the debates are meant to serve would very likely watch and gain more from having done so.

Next week, I shall offer a second idea that I believe should be implemented to ensure that Republicans nominate more representative candidates in presidential elections.

Article Sources:[1] http://www.heritage.org/Events/2011/10/Reagan-Buckley-Debate

Photo Sources: "Pic1" from http://images.politico.com/global/news/110906_debatecan_ap_328.jpg; "Pic2" from http://api.ning.com/files/7d9cg5RxNhpM1EK*guUfttvQ*CAusmX7TOWH9XAC8ePQ*gWbCVCY6nBclHeunmkB4XM7KOUMBStASGtQO8kz4bnL1PPydvra/BuckleyReagan.jpg; "Pic3" from http://www.onedayonejob.com/wp-content/uploads/american-enterprise-institute-logo.png