Let me make this simple. America’s voters should be allowed to escape the emotional trap that has increasingly become the framework of Presidential politics. The debate about the debate and the performative result when a debate finally happens.
Straightforward questions and answers should be available to the voters. At least those who want them.
I am not against debates, but rarely do they provide straight forward answers and often they are won or lost by theatrics. And while follow-up questions are allowed, too often they are weighted by the interviewers pre-dispositions. Journalism schools should have a course that teaches Jim Lehrer techniques for fair debates. Recall, Jim Lehrer was the PBS newsman that both sides most often found acceptable as a debate moderator.
Since we are only weeks away from an election, I propose two news organizations — the New York Times and Wall Street Journal concur on a list of questions not to exceed two per topic to submit to Trump and Harris. My beginning suggestions:
- What programs should be funded by increasing our national debt?
- How should we reconcile the gap between entitlement promises and funding?
- The limits, if any, of US support for Ukraine?
- In 200 words or less, what would a Trump or Harris Administration seek to achieve?
Now to my defense. Yes, there are many more questions that could be asked, but given today’s span of attention, lengthy questions and answers will not be read. Plus, the goal should be to provide a format that will persuade all media to participate in presenting the answers.
I have chosen only two newspapers (leaning left and right) to avoid time lapses and the potential of jockeying for more favorable formats or release dates. The questions should go out quickly and the candidates responses be required in five days.
Finally, I spent three and a half years at the Federal Communications Commission watching disputes devolve into lawyering. Surely these two esteemed news organizations can find a way to get out-of-the-way, allowing the two candidates to choose how straightforward they want to be and letting the voters reach their own conclusions.
Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.
William Dalton says
Obviously Al did not like the corrections made by ABC. Back to his old whipping agenda of claiming social programs that help people cost too much . Actually I understand the deficit had a greater increase under Trump. The form of AL’s question telegraphs the answer he wants. Personally I think debates help as they did this year. Biden is too old and Trump is too confused. Harris has an agenda.
Reed Fawell 3 says
This is a pretty glum proposal. Apparently, today, according to the writer, a former federal political appointee: Americans are too fragile to withstand emotional traps set by candidates in their presidential debates. Individual American journalists are too biased to moderate and choose questions for such debates. American voters are also too scatterbrained to understand and process any thing more than a total of four simple and short questions delivered to the candidates in writing by only two news organizations.
And the candidates need be given 5 days to answer these four simple and short questions in writing.
And the questions only can be asked by two biased NYC newspapers, the NYTs and the WSJ. All of this is proposed to be done in our age of instantaneous information and communication, much now driven by AI.
So why not just toss out the idea and pretense of democracy that plainly does NOT WORk? And return of a form of republican government that does work and, by and large, has worked for some 235 years, as built by our Founders who knew that Americans, like the ancient Greeks, could not govern themselves in a democracy, and never would.
THOMAS FANNON says
Thank you…right on target. I watched one of the Nixon-Kennedy debates on YouTube last night, and it was a world away from what they have deteriorated to now. The topic was foreign policy. Each candidate was given eight minutes to provide a thorough overview of his positions, and questions followed. Differences were noted respectfully, as were points of agreement. How do we turn back the clock?
Reed Fawell 3 says
Thomas Fannon’s above comment helps to prove my point.
trudy wonder says
I agree that an 8-minute response format would be an improvement. It’s hard to convey anything meaningful in two minutes. So, we get platitudes and campaign talk points. This would make it much harder to dodge answering the question asked, too. A candidate’s dancing-around-the-question would be much more obvious – which, in itself, is informative for voters.
I do think debates are an important part of the decision-making process for voters, and should remain a core part of the process.
Rebecca Ellison says
A waste of breath effort by super-Republican Al Sikes, apparently simply aimed at avoiding a second debate. The joke is on him – ONE debate has been more than enough.
Plus, the reality is that anyone who has been alive for the past decade ALREADY knows who Donald Trump is, what he has done, and what he stands for at the moment … so actually no need for a debate at all.
Mr. Sikes might be able to comprehend the truth about TFG if he would stop trying so hard to defend his party’s indefensible choice.
A reply note to this article sums the situation up pretty well … Mr. Trump is ‘too confused’ and Ms. Harris ‘has an agenda’.
We already know the details … we have LIVED them. We all know who our choice is. There is is no need for a second debate … Mr. Sikes needs to drop his whip.
Ms. Harris represents us and she responds to us … she will will make a very good president. That becomes more clear every day. Finally a breath of fresh air and reason.
Reed Fawell 3 says
This is what I mean by observing the ongoing obvious that illustrates the dangers of democracy. Citizens pampered to go off the rail overtime, and without exception. Today’s technology, however appears to be driving it into oblivion at warp speed as Woke evaporates reality for useful idiots.