Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Never Say "I've Seen It All".
I have been paying attention to politics since Watergate interrupted my after school programs in 1974, and have been a junkie ever since. What I have witnessed since 1974 is a trend towards the bad and not the good. Gridlock was the good ol' days--now it is dysfunction and anarchy. My interests have also included presidential elections, and in particular, candidate debates, and much like the evolution of government, this too has taken a turn for the worse. But as bad as debates have been, I must say the GOP candidate debate in Colorado this evening was two hours of some of the worst in politics that I have ever seen. And remember, I sat through VP candidate Stockdale's cringeworthy performance where he forgot to turn his hearing aid on. So let's get to it.
The blame and disgust I have is not for the candidates--the candidates will be candidates--though I believe we have seen a new low when a U.S. Senator is willing to call another political leader a "liar" only because a partisan witchhunt in the House did not yield the results he was after (but then again there was a U.S. Senator a couple of years ago who called the President a "liar" during the State of the Union address). So for me, when Donald Trump is one of your frontrunners, "august" is probably not going to be an adjective that sticks. No, my disgust is aimed directly at CNBC, which moderated tonight's "debate". And "moderating" is probably too kind. CNBC zipped around the stage with very little followup, it tried to hit candidates with negative statements that the moderators failed to back up or simply got wrong (thus adding extra "oomph" to the liberal bias accusation), and delved in totally ridiculous questioning ("what is your major weakness?", as if...).
Once the 2016 election cycle has passed, can we begin to talk about some honest reforms to this system of debates, which face it, is not designed to bring forward substantive issues, but is instead to design for economic windfall (the advertising) and to pimp a network's new lineup (some god-awful show called "The Profit"). How about in 2020:
The blame and disgust I have is not for the candidates--the candidates will be candidates--though I believe we have seen a new low when a U.S. Senator is willing to call another political leader a "liar" only because a partisan witchhunt in the House did not yield the results he was after (but then again there was a U.S. Senator a couple of years ago who called the President a "liar" during the State of the Union address). So for me, when Donald Trump is one of your frontrunners, "august" is probably not going to be an adjective that sticks. No, my disgust is aimed directly at CNBC, which moderated tonight's "debate". And "moderating" is probably too kind. CNBC zipped around the stage with very little followup, it tried to hit candidates with negative statements that the moderators failed to back up or simply got wrong (thus adding extra "oomph" to the liberal bias accusation), and delved in totally ridiculous questioning ("what is your major weakness?", as if...).
Once the 2016 election cycle has passed, can we begin to talk about some honest reforms to this system of debates, which face it, is not designed to bring forward substantive issues, but is instead to design for economic windfall (the advertising) and to pimp a network's new lineup (some god-awful show called "The Profit"). How about in 2020:
- We limit the number of debates;
- We hold debates the are centered around a theme, say "The Budget" or "The Middle East"? This will at least stop the scattershot nature of our debates where candidates zing back and forth, resulting in a few candidates getting most of the time;
- We have a system where time is parceled out in a fair and equitable manner, and the questions each candidate gets is not qualitatively different from other candidates (such as "why are you still in the race");
- We put the candidates polling the lowest in the center given that polling is in direct response to media attention;
- We get rid of news media moderators, and instead let social scientists have a crack at moderating the debates--name your crew, but social scientists like myself have been complaining for fifty years that the media primary is absolutely the worst way to pick a candidate for any office, let alone the presidency.
Labels: 2016 Election, CNBC Debate
