Does the debate format need to change?
As I watch debate after debate between the Republican candidates, it becomes difficult to see who these discussions are really for: the media, the electorate, or simply the candidates themselves?
The past few debates, the moderators have ended up with tomato on their faces for asking questions the candidates did not feel were appropriate. The candidates threw talking points at each other, but at the end it was difficult to get a real picture of any of the candidates.
Who are they? What do they believe in? How do they envision this country in the future? Of course, they can wax poetic on these subjects. But what does that have to do with what actually matters, the day-to-day tasks of a presidency?
This isn’t a problem unique to Republicans, I’m sure once a candidate is selected, we will see the same grandstanding from Obama in the Democrat/Republican debates. This is a problem that seeps throughout the American political system.
I also think it is a big reason why so many people on the left are so disappointed in Obama. Candidacy has become about talking points, not about practicalities.
A few years ago, while I was living in and working in Europe, I watched the Swedish election drama heat up. The party leaders – since you vote for a party and not necessarily a candidate – were debating on TV.
Unlike an American debate, where everyone stands at a lectern, at equal height, with great lighting, these politicians sat around a table, some taller than others, across from the moderator.
And then, to my astonishment, the moderator ripped them to pieces, not just one participant in particular, but anyone who refused to actually answer the questions.
When the question was about how the parties planned to deal with issues of discrimination, some of the politicians tried to dance around the question, giving diffuse answers about how discrimination has no place in the country and is not a Swedish value. The moderator fired back with “Yes, but what do you plan to DO about the situation, you haven’t given me any action plan.”
The party leaders actually looked flustered at various points of the debate, and some of the answers really sounded genuinely unrehearsed – and not in a Sarah Palin unrehearsed kind of way.
It was refreshing watching the politicians actually called on to say something and not just to pontificate.
Now I cannot answer directly to the results, if these politicians actually followed through, or simply went and did something else.
I just know it was nice to see an actual discussion of issues. To watch politicians talk about what they know or don’t know.
Thus far, the only example I’ve seen of that was Jon Huntsman — and we all saw what happened to him. It was refreshing to see him call out Romney on China, and use his area of expertise to point out why Romney’s ideas were pretty worthless.
In some ways I am glad to see the Republican candidates and audiences begin to pick on the moderators, I hope it helps the moderators grow some teeth and ask some questions that really matter. Some questions which we would all like to know the answer to, like if you get rid of the current health care bill, how will you keep health insurance companies in check? How can we stop medical bills from bankrupting so many Americans who have planned ahead, but were sabotaged by random rulings from insurance companies? How can we find the funding to rebuild our roads and infrastructure to keep America beautiful and strong?
These are the issues I would love to hear politicians actually answer directly. I don’t care how much money they have, or don’t have. I don’t mind if they are successful and wealthy, but I do want to know they are human.
