Election debates scratch surface

Monday, October 28, 1996

DIALOGUE:

More time needed for discussion of views on complex issuesBy
Paul McGinnis

Today I received my voter notification card in the mail,
verifying my eligibility to vote in the upcoming elections. This
nondescript manila postcard initially filled me with pride that I
live in a rare country where every man and woman has an equal voice
in government. Now it sits on the corner of my desk, reminding me
just how confused I am as to how I will use my vote.

It’s not that I don’t understand the basic differences that
separate all the varied political ideologies. It’s just that in an
election year which has seen the two major candidates do an
about-face on previous policy, i.e. "moderate toward the center," I
find myself in need of further clarification on several issues. I
had hoped that the conventions and the debates would help resolve
the uncertainties that keep me bouncing around in this undecided
limbo. They didn’t. Now, with only two weeks to go until Nov. 5,
the only thing to look forward to is biased, high price-tag
advertising warfare. Where could my questions have been answered
but weren’t? The debates.

Let’s take quick look at the current 90-minute formats ­
both the single moderator and the town hall (in which a group of
randomly chosen citizens ask their own questions). For each
question asked, both candidates give a two-minute response (usually
very well rehearsed) plus a 30-second rebuttal for the original
question.

In one debate, that gives us about 13 different questions with
approximately 5 minutes each. Like a student cramming to understand
all 10 weeks of a course 10 hours before a final exam, this format
forces us to digest too much too quickly.

Even worse, it does not allow us to get into detail on any one
subject. From health care to welfare, from Arafat to the
ever-present tax cuts, the recent debates splashed around every
issue in the political trough. With so little time for each
question, we barely got our noses wet.

Perhaps it’s too much to want less statistics and sound bites
and more in-depth conversation between the candidates and the
people. I say no.

What we need are intensive, topical debates ­ McNeil-Lehrer
style. Instead of two all-encompassing debates, let’s have four
90-minute debates with only three pre-chosen topics each. This way
we would ferret out the rote responses and meet the real
candidates. For 30-minutes the candidates could face off and
actually DEBATE one another. Of course, some topics wouldn’t last
the full half hour. How long can one pound away at such a
diametrically opposed issue as abortion? Come to think of it, I
don’t know. Maybe a long time. We’ve never given the candidates a
chance.

Let’s remember that many candidates don’t want such a chance.
Traditionally, incumbents want less debate time (to screw up) and
non-incumbents want more time (to prove themselves, and to allow
the incumbents to screw up).

These new detail-oriented debates would both improve and thrive
in the popular town hall format. One of the things that I didn’t
like about the town hall format this year was that the people who
asked the questions didn’t have the chance to follow up or make a
rebuttal. Wouldn’t it have been great to see Joe Schmoe pipe up
with a "Mr. Dole, you say that you don’t know if cigarettes are
addictive because you aren’t a doctor. Ever thought of ASKING one?"
Or how about a "Mr. President, you just said that all Latin
American countries, with the exception of Cuba, are democracies.
(Yes, he did, in fact, say this.) In regards to your statement, Mr.
President, just what is YOUR definition of DEMOCRACY?"

There are ways beyond the debates to discover the true
candidates behind their well-constructed facade. Voting and veto
records are key indicators of where a candidate stands. We as
voters would do well to spend a little time researching into the
prospective president’s past voting history. But while voting
records are very important, debates still stand as critical
re-affirmations of policy and as a look toward the future.

Is the United States public too comfortable with short
attention-span politics to demand such changes? I hope not. Aldous
Huxley wrote of a Brave New World in which we unwittingly shackle
ourselves to our own personal paradise, no longer aware (or even
caring to be aware) of the totalitarian state and the looming
disasters that surround us. Today our world faces too many grave
portents for us to become so comfortably numb.

Every day we destroy more of our invaluable rain forests. Soon
they could be gone, and we’ll be stuck with unstoppable global
warming and a ballooning ozone hole. Unlike many would have us
believe, the end of the Cold War does not equate the end of nuclear
proliferation. We must stay aware and continue to demand from
ourselves and other nations an end to such madness. The U.S. faces
stronger and stronger economic competition around the globe, and we
can no longer cling on to our sentimental self-portrait as the
world’s economic powerhouse. With all this facing us and more, we
need to demand more of our presidential candidates. Intensive
topical debates are the first step. Let’s demand it for ourselves
and for our future.