Debates and Democracy
We are told this is a time of crisis. We are told we are on the cusp of an unknown but terrible period. We are told democracy is in peril like never before and the stakes are higher than at any time in history. Unless, you count the 1932 and 1936 elections, the 1968 and 1972 elections, and every other election in which Democrats trotted out their democracy doomsday as campaign strategy handbook. This strategy is a little transitory in nature and more central in their message some years than others depending on polling data in a particular election year.
In any event, Senator Raphael Warnock feels the widespread sense of panic about democracy and has adopted it as a central theme of his reelection effort It would be nice to have a deep discussion about American democracy at some point, but if it is indeed in danger, and Democrats genuinely care about and want to protect and advance democracy, then why do they continue to defend and eagerly engage in what is obviously harmful to democracy, while labeling as enemies of democracy those who don’t?
Take, for example, the issue of candidate debates. The Republican National Committee recently withdrew from the panel on presidential debates, and Warnock’s Republican opponent, Hershel Walker, has not committed to the debates that Warnock gleefully committed to. As a result, the RNC and Walker are branded as traitors to democracy. But has anyone stopped to think about candidate debates and how they effect democracy?
Why do we continue to have these things?
No matter what office is sought, from president to dog catcher, the political debate has become a staple of every campaign and election. The brief answer and rebuttal format is well known if little understood, as is the familiar ceremonial staging. This formal setup is replicated across the county, even for small local elections. The debates, which were supposed to provide voters with a contrasted view of the candidates and their positions, fail in their core duty. This is one of the few instances where there is widespread consensus across political lines right now.
Instead of true debate, voters are given either a series of prepackaged and formulaic answers that ramble enough to fill the 1-2 minute time and, when feasible, give some voters emotional flight on their favorite subject, or the elusive moment when one candidate strikes political gold when, in a flash of mental agility, they hurl out a zinger or some begging to go viral statement. Attempts to achieve those moments are now the goal of many candidates. A plethora of research on the subject gives scholastic validity to what any voter who has seen one of these performances already understands. They’re awful and should be stopped. In the recent primary elections, I wrote about how this was damaging state-level politics.
If the goal of candidate debates is to educate voters, the current format should be abandoned. If the goal of debates is for candidates to act in increasingly vulgar, dismissive, and divisive ways in order to generate the greatest number of moments for use in viral out-of-context clips and negative campaign advertising that misleads voters, then we should applaud ourselves for the current debate format and devise ways to attack and disparage anyone who refuses to participate in the charade.
Abandon The Debates
What, if anything, should replace the debates if they are to be abandoned? The goal of the candidate debate was and is still a good one. So, how then, are we to provide a way for voters to hear from the candidates so that voters are given the benefit of contrasting and comparing them?
Some have advocated a debate structure similar to the current debates but with more time allotted for responses and rebuttals, as in academic debates. More in-depth responses would be an improvement, but reform can not get to the heart of the problem. The confrontational approach fostered by the structure of the debates is largely why the debates are like they are in the first place.
Furthermore, if you think of the debates as a way of evaluating applicants for a job, then electing the winner of a debate is a really weird and poor hiring practice. The person elected will be engaged in activities that demand the polar opposite abilities and attributes required for a great debate performance. If you own a business, how much sense would it make to require applicants to demonstrate mastery of skills diametrically opposed to those actually required for the job?
If Not Debates, Then What?
In 2015, I spent almost three hours watching or listening to Bernie Sanders discuss a broad range of issues and explain his many views. I wasn’t alone; millions of conservatives did the same. Were we high? Why would conservatives watch or listen to Bernie Sanders for even an hour, let alone three? This was not a debate, nor a speech, nor a newscast, nor anything else that had been rehearsed or edited. This was the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast.
Millions of liberals, like conservatives who watched Sanders, spent hours watching and listening to conservative Ben Shapiro. Rogan and most of his audience disagreed with many of Shapiro’s views just as strongly as I did with Bernie Sanders’. Despite disagreement, the engaging structure encourages areas of agreement and tolerance. Rogan doesn’t ask softball questions, but he also doesn’t go for gotcha Mike Wallace moments. There is, in reality, no question list. It is a discussion, not an inquisition. A one-on-one relaxed casual conversation that starts with mutual respect.
It has been a long time since a conventional debate resulted in viewers gaining respect for candidates on the other side of the political spectrum. If a podcast hosted by a comedian who moonlights as an MMA commentator is achieving that and encouraging shared common ground on a regular basis, whereas conventional debates often lead to the opposite outcomes, it is time to scrap the debates.
Something Better For Everyone
I’m not suggesting we bring Joe Rogan in to host a program where he interviews politicians. I am suggesting inspiration might be taken from his show given that it is the most popular podcast in the world and has audience sizes each week dwarfing all but the most popular sports programming and all news content.
What would happen if two rival candidates sat down across from each other in a room with no one else present, just stationary cameras and talked for three hours? Is it possible that candidates may be more genuine? What if the first thing they discussed was their common goal of a better town, state, and country then prove the point by disagreeing for three hours without disparagement?
The result would be immensely preferable to the debates we have now. It would doubtlessly be more educational and far more fun. There would be real discussion, and that would be a refreshing experience for all. The purpose of this encounter is not for them to try to convince each other of anything. Disagreeing is the point. The candidates would have to show that they can respectfully talk about issues, listen well, and defend their positions with someone who doesn’t agree with them—which happens to be a handy, if old fashioned, skill for governing. Voters would see clear division on issues and areas of common ground rather than full intractable divide. Imagine if they had to do this once a month leading up to election day.
As far as democracy is concerned, which is better? On this, no argument is necessary. The debates that democrats cherish as essential democratic traditions and that Raphael Warnock urges will undoubtedly contribute to everything that is actually endangering American democracy, while providing little to no value to voters or the political process.
I hope all Republicans decide to skip the debates. Candidates may become a bit more knowledgeable and a little less theatrical if we replace debates with something useful for voters.
***If Marjorie Taylor Greene and Marcus Flowers agreed to do this instead of a debate in the GA-14 race, it should be a PPV event and the sales will eclipse the last Mike Tyson fight.
About Author
elliotpierce
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I would welcome an opportunity for Walker to sit and honestly explain what he hopes to accomplish as a Senator. However; I want to see how he performs in a hard question and answer debate. Would he keep his cool and answer cogently? His heart might be in the right place. Mine would be as well, but I don’t have the skill set or intellect to be an effective Senator, and I know that. A one on one comparison of the candidates with a debate is the most effective way to help those that don’t want a Democrat representing the to see what they might get in a football star.
What action is taken by a legislative body prior to voting on a bill in the typical Democracy?
They DEBATE.
Your equivocation regarding an unqualified candidate who obviously wouldn’t be able to hold up his end in a debate prior to an election, much less on the Senate floor is absurd.
Although I do not know where the utopia of which you speak exists, the US and western Europe have known for many decades that legislators’ vote decisions are rarely influenced by legislative or parliamentary debates. Former congressman Henry Hyde, was the last congressman capable of inspiring brief departures from this norm. He’s been dead 15 years.
In the Senate, legislative debate has little importance, and this will remain the case for as long as the bipartisan rules allow politicians to use debate, committees and other parts of the process as a stage to perform. Sen. Ben Sasse has some interesting ideas for institutional restoration. A couple of his ideas should be considered for the General Assembly as well.
So returning to the article, the closing question remains, “As far as democracy is concerned, which is better? “
Only two kinds of candidates refuse to debate, those who can’t and those with a safe lead. Both kinds never have trouble finding flacks to justify their inaction, as your column shows.
If your party of choice stopped nominating election denialists, bad-air climatologists, and fathers who keep forgetting how many kids they have, they would have a better chance of winning and you could save yourself the efforts of additional sophistry.
“What would happen if two rival candidates sat down across from each other in a room with no one else present, just stationary cameras and talked for three hours? Is it possible that candidates may be more genuine? What if the first thing they discussed was their common goal of a better town, state, and country then prove the point by disagreeing for three hours without disparagement?”
If that isn’t a utopian fantasy then I’m off to find Sir More’s island. You are talking about a debate in a different format and in this case, even with the application of some fairy dust to keep out the disparagement, Herschel would still get his ass handed to him. I personally have some serious political differences with Sen. Warnock but Mr. Walker would be an embarrassment to the state of Georgia in the US Senate. More than even Marjorie Taylor Greene since she is only one of fourteen.
And no, I have no illusions regarding our legislative “debates” in today’s Congress. Their inability to function has resulted in too much power residing with the Executive branch and subsequently in the Judicial in the modern era. My utopia would address the root causes of this dysfunction. Perhaps some Constitutional amendments to assert the Bill of Rights only applies to individual citizens, eliminate money as free speech, and outlawing political gerrymandering would be a start.
This does seem like the tail wagging the dog– i.e. our candidate is not debating, so let’s attack the process of debating.
Putting that sort of typical politic aside, the improvements you’re suggesting- and pls correct or clarify if ncssry – seem to be just eliminating a live in-person audience and moderator(s). Actually, you liked podcasts, (and perhaps presumably other interview formats as well), where an interviewer is acting as a moderator for the audience anyways….
So maybe it’s just the live in-person audience?
But your intent seems to seek to elevate the game, and eliminate the negativity, and that’s respectful. So let me start with that word- respect. Because negativity starts with disrespect- of the people involved, and the process. If the debate format is two minutes to reply and you exceed that time limit, and don’t stop talking, then that’s disrespect of the process. That disrespect is not a function of the process, but of the participant. Going over time limits by 5 to 10 seconds is forgivable, but interrupting someone really wouldn’t be.
And then here we are, where part of our state motto is “Moderation”. And thus one might think that the better the moderation, the more successful the government. One may also think the more successful the moderator, the better the debate. Which makes sense when the issue is negativity. The debate process can certainly be moderated better. E.g., say someone’s interrupting, or goes over time limit — I’m pretty certain the answer is as simple as a switch to kill the mic. Are you interrupting or more than 5 seconds past your time limit? Mic off. Do you continue to rant and rave after the mic is off? Then that time will be assessed as a penalty against your other time. In fact, any interruption could be penalized.
And then, you might think well, if you’re going give moderators that power in order to solve the problem, then it’s obvious that the best way to have well-moderated debates is to have well-moderated candidates. Respectful candidates. And that’s true. (And to make sure, you have a tight process that must be respected, and penalizes disrespect.)
Go ahead, vary the formats– as they’ve done with the online Q&A format — or have one debate that’s audio-only if (esp. you think that in-person audiences raise the level of theatrics), etc.
But the respectful candidate would respect the debate process, and therein respect the voters- by participating.
@bethebalance it may seem like the tail is wagging the dog but that isn’t the case. I have no delusions that Herschel Walker is hesitant to debate because he wants debates and process improved. My guess is that he is fearful that participation in them as they are currently run will be ruinous to his campaign and raw meat for the pride of lions in state and national media.
I agree with you, better candidates = better debates. If we had Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale on the ballot we wouldn’t be talking about this. In the absence of better candidates there is obviously a limited effectiveness of any changes meant to civilize and improve the process. So, how do we get better candidates? That is the real question. One that leaders from both parties have been unwilling to grapple with for years.
I think ranked choice voting is part of the answer. Look at Alaska’s recent special election. Sarah Palin followed the national invective playbook, ceaselessly attacking her republican opponents without hesitation. She received the most votes in the non-partisan open primary in June that sent the top four to the ranked choice special election in August. In that race, the lone democrat to advance from the primary finished with the highest number of votes but short of 50%. When the ranked choice tabulation occurred Palin still lost, as enough GOP voters selected a Democrat as their second choice rather than Palin. If she ran a campaign on issues and without all the personal attacks and negativity then she may have been the second choice of more Republican voters.
A system like that would eliminate the need for some proposals to change debates and campaigns aimed at enforcing greater civility. As for our state, Speaker Ralston and Stacey Abrams have dismissed the idea of changes like the Alaska system.
@Will Durant, I was most taken by a line from your comment “Their inability to function has resulted in too much power residing with the Executive branch and subsequently in the Judicial in the modern era.”
I agree that far too much power resides in the executive branch. It is curious that anyone who thinks that would support Sen. Warnock.
If you believe the executive branch has too much authority, where should that power be transferred? Either to Congress, where elected representatives should make decisions, or back to the people. Senator Warnock is vehemently opposed to such ideas.
I disagree that the judicial branch has too much authority, but I’m not sure how someone who believes the judicial branch has too much power can support Sen. Warnock. Consider the Dobbs decision. Many amici asked the court to reject Roe and go much farther and prohibit abortion outright. This would have been an act of “raw judicial power,” just as the Roe and Casey rulings were. Instead, the court sent the question back to the states and the people to decide. Sen. Warnock could not have been more emphatic in his opposition to this. He would have preferred that the court continue to block any democratic outlet for settlement.
Most people overlook the fact that often the politicians who yell the loudest for democracy’s defense advocate the most antidemocratic policies and ideas. If Warnock and Abrams genuinely valued democracy, they would have praised the court’s decision to return authority to the people to settle the problem, notwithstanding their disagreement on the fundamental issue.
So you’re more disturbed by a candidate’s inability or refusal to engage in campaign theatrics than by Senator Warnock’s absolute hostility to some rather important political positions you hold. Interesting.
To your other points, money equals speech. That’s a wall you just can’t climb over. You can only demand transparency, which we do not have right now.
I am not a fan of gerrymandering, but we are not yet at a point today where it can be corrected. If technology ever permits states to have trustworthy reliable election administration without the challenges associated with jurisdictional boundaries, we may be able to have something resembling nonpartisan redistricting. I used to like the idea of commissions handling redistricting but this cycle proved that isn’t the answer either.
Finally, the oath keepers and many of their allies would like to know more about your amendment and any ideas that restrict constitutional rights protection to citizens exclusively. A constitutional amendment that would require undocumented immigrants to be denied due process is nearly beyond their wildest fantasies. But I know that’s not what you meant. I hope.
I get the critique about debates. However, it’s the ultimate FU to the voters telling them you can’t be bothered to spend a couple hours out of an entire campaign season to answer some questions in a debate format.
“in a debate format” is the key phrase. What we have now is not a debate and whatever it is does not provide anything more than what I described and some entertainment. If Warnock had agreed to three rounds of American Ninja Warrior but Walker declined, would that be an FU to voters? Maybe, since ANW would be more entertaining and less detrimental.
@bethebalance I totally agree with your rules of engagement and penalties. Turn off the mic. Easy. I would add an airhorn for those that continuously interrupt, go over time, or avoid the question and go off-topic to spew unrelated talking points.
I would love ranked choice voting with the hope that candidates would be forced to actually engage with voters and present policy and solutions campaign material. The current system of carefully curated and gerrymandered ‘most likely’ voters creates a dis-incentive to communicate except with tired, trigger phrase loaded, attack ads. I would love to reduce the runoffs and endless campaigning. Make them work for votes in a shorter time frame.
@Elliot Pierce, Relevant questions on debates would be nice. Most debates have stupid questions not always relevant to what a candidate’s role in office can accomplish.
Reconnecting to this thread for some ncssry dialogue. @Elliot, you say “money equals speech. That’s a wall you just can’t climb over. You can only demand transparency, which we do not have right now.”
But that is way over-reductionistic, to a fatalistic point that requires some intervention. My main concern is that you lump massively complex concepts together without attention to detail. Neither money nor speech are monolithic in any way whatsoever, so that demands some more detail. (Similarly, btw, I object to loose use of the saying that “time=money” bc it sure as sh*te doesn’t- not all the time- and thus disproves itself. Time=Money for certain circumstances, if that is the only focus for the interested parties, but we should still be careful not to get it twisted. Time is ultimately WAY more valuable than money, in every way I can think of.) Similarly, if time=money and money=speech, than time=speech? : )
No, money and speech are not all the same. All depends on context. Political money and political speech are ust not the same as commercial money or commercial speech, etc. Speaking of which, corporate “personhood” doesn’t equal human personhood. All these concepts will continue to evolve, and statutes and case law will create circumstantial definitions and applicability. So, my underlying message: There is no unclimbable wall. Not now, and certainly not as law evolves. We must not resign ourselves to monoliths, absolutes, or hopelessness. Rather, we must challenge where needed.
Side note: re: redistricting, I have for years been suggesting wherever I could that the law Could Be that legislators approve a specific software program (which embeds legally-required algorithmic factors), which software is administered by a third-party contractor. Then you can add in whatever layers of bipartisan or judicial approval needed- with the idea being that there is no partisan manipulation of the maps, just approval. The vendor approval/procurement process, etc. could all be contentious, and require very detailed procedures, but all ncssry and preferred imo.