Well I watched the Democratic presidential debate on Monday and the republican debate last week. After watching these debates, I am concerned about the primary process and what our technologies have turned it into. I know this is something that has been lamented over by countless Americans but I seriously think we need to decide what about it we don't like and need to have a movement to attempt to fix it.
We are currently facing a high possibility of nuclear attack, which could very likely mean the end of life. We are in the middle of foreign and domestic crisis and because of our communication technologies all of the worlds problems have become lumped together and interconnected.
When Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass were running against each other for president in 1860 the debate format was quite different. The debates often went on for over seven hours and the candidates each were allotted upwards of an hour to explain all of their policies etc. and than the other candidate was allowed to respond. They wrote detailed speeches in articulated English that was very specific which allowed for a very healthy discourse.
In today's debates, policy is not even discussed. In the recent democratic debate the first half hour of the debate was spent resolving a dispute between Hillary and Barrack that was closer to high school drama than a serious political discussion.
In the republican debate John McCain told us that he would “follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell”, and Thompson spent his time bickering at Huckabee about how he has “liberal policies”.
You see that is the thing; I think the media needs to force these candidates to talk specifics about their policies. Mainstream media tells the public very little if any specifics of the candidate's policies. They don't ask and force the candidates to say specifically why they support their policies if they are even able to get a 40 second summation of the policy. What I fear is that these summations may actually be all of the policy. Oh dear.
The debate format is an even bigger joke. Ok you have 30 seconds, how are you going to solve the energy crisis? Go!........5 seconds, ok Hillary you now go!
The Middle East, the economy, national security, energy crisis, nuclear proliferation, these are all subjects whose solutions require serious thought and discourse. How can we know anything about our candidates when our debates are in the format of a game show?
I understand it is difficult when you have three candidates or more but this is the election for the president of the United States. The existence of human life may be resting on his shoulders for these upcoming years as nuclear attack becomes more and more possible.
Another thing I don't get: why do they play music before the debate, and try and hype it up? The debates look more like just another reality TV show in their format. I understand that they want to bring viewers to the show but at the expense of transforming politics into show business. I think the candidates may be spending more time with their cosmetic people than on thinking and hashing out policy.
Although I am critical of the current process, I don't want to be self-promoting in any way. I don't have any brilliant ideas on how we can improve the process, but I do have some suggestions that I believe may help us to pick the best possible candidate to lead us through these problems and to a safer world.
The debates should not be shown on private networks. They should all be on CSPAN. This would eliminate the incentive to make money on the debates so that they can be shown in a manner, which does not transform them into a theatre production.
The debates should range for at least 4 to 5 hours giving candidates time to explain specifically their policies and why they believe in those policies. They should not believe in them because they are republican or because they are democrat. They should believe in them for a specific reason and purpose.
The candidates should all be cross-examined after their speeches and explanations by someone who is purposely playing devils advocate.
An hour should be reserved at the end of the debates for the candidates to cross-examine each other.
I believe that if we make our debates more thorough as such that we will allow a platform for the best candidate to be chosen and someone like George Bush would not be voted into office.
I also recognize a possibility that no one will watch the debates and as a result we will be even less informed. I think Americans who recognize the responsibility they have will watch them. With all our technology they can be tivoed and placed all over the Internet so they could be watched in bits and pieces.
I would be interested for anyone who agrees or disagrees to comment with their suggestions if they agree that this is a problem or if they don't agree that it is a problem than explain why they don't agree.
