But is the presidential debate, at least in its current form, good for anything? I think the obvious answer is "no".
Firstly, the "debates" are not really debates. At best, the moderator asks a question and the candidate does his or her best to respond with a rambling non-answer. The tougher the question, the more obfuscating the response. The only real useful information is if the candidate's answer reveals ignorance of the subject. Otherwise we're getting canned mini-speeches that we've already heard in interviews, rallies and other public appearances.
But how else are we going to find out about a candidates fitness for office? Well, we don't find out now, as I have said. When we have people running for high office with zero political experience, we're going to get an unknown quantity, no matter how well, or how poorly they do in a debate. When a senator or governor is running for president, they have a record to run on - either their knowledge of foreign policy or the big national issues in the case of a senator, or the ability to work with a legislature and oversee a bureaucracy in the case of a governor. Running a business is a completely different skill set with entirely different consequences for getting things wrong.
The way debates have devolved into "gotcha" sessions has just made things worse. Candidate Trump turned the Republican primary debates in 2015 and 2016 into a circus. Voters responded to crude put-downs over reasoned policy positions.
Granted, determining who will be the best candidate is difficult. There's a lot of information, misinformation and disinformation to sort through. The current two-party system, where everyone is funneled through the two major parties doesn't make it any easier. But let's stop pretending that debates mean anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment