We need better prewsidential debates in 2008

We need better presidential debates than we’ve had in the past few years. Letting a moderator ask the questions, allowing only a minute or so for an answer, and not even allowing the debaters to question each other is hardly a real debate.

In 1858 Lincoln and Douglas opposed each other for one of the Illinois seats in the US Senate. They had seven debates, all across the state of Illinois. In the first debate Douglas spoke for an hour and a half, then Lincoln spoke for an hour and a half, and then Douglas closed the debate with another half-hour of comments. Lincoln and Douglas remained polite throughout the but they did not spare each other in their remarks. The audience loved the whole show, calling out comments from time to time, laughing, cheering, and just generally having a good old time. Lincoln did try to break in on a Douglas point a few times but spectators physically dragged him back and let Douglas go ahead.

How do we get something similar in 2008? The basics are simple enough. Needed is a hall or auditorium with comfortable seats for the audience and a platform for the presidential candidates. A referee would probably be needed to insure fairness, although Lincoln and Douglas didn’t need one--the spectators appear to have done that for them. The audience is not to be silenced but it should not be allowed to interrupt the debate.

Start off with the series with two or three candidates for the first debate. Each person can speak for up to an hour. Then the other debaters can speak, also for up to an hour. In the last leg of the debate, they each can speak in rebuttal and ask each other questions. The length of the speeches would be controlled to some extent by the reactions of the audience, with the debaters taking their chances about telling lies and boring the audience. The referee would not ask any questions and would not attempt to limit any speech, except to the extent necessary to maintain order.

The second debate would be between another two or three candidates. Since they are free to discuss anything they want, they can bring up topics raised in the first debate or they can bring up new topics. In the second debate (and also in the first debate) any of the candidates can challenge any of the other candidates, whether in the first debate or not, to a follow-on debate. All candidates are free to accept or decline any challenge.

All the speeches would be taped and/or televised at the time--all two or three hours. C-span or Unity08 might be willing to sponsor the debates. As each debate is ended, the video would be made generally available to schools, clubs, political organizations, and tv and radio stations and networks. In addition, a small group of experienced editors would edit the material of each debate down to an hour or a half hour and make it generally available.

Would national politicians actually participate in debates of this type? Most politicians who believed they had a real chance at the presidency would probably try to duck. These are exactly the types of sitting ducks that candidates like Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich might want to take on. But the way things are now, nobody in big media will pay much attention to Al and Dennis. Certainly they are not likely to give them an hour of air time to state their views and to contrast their positions with others.

Do John McCain and Hillary Clinton have health plans? What do John Edwards and Mitt Romney think of their plans? What will the various plans cost? Who will be covered? Who will be affected? These are all questions about health that cannot be answered in a 15 second sound bite. Questions such as these are not beyond the comprehension of the voting public but they are beyond the capability (or, more accurately, the willingness) of our radio and tv networks to provide. The networks won’t provide the time because they want to sell more soap and Nexium.

But fascinating content such as freewheeling debates between the major presidential candidates should find audiences all over the country (all over the world, probably) in local schools and lodge meetings, at caucuses of political parties, and at political meetings everywhere.

Freewheeling debates can be dangerous to politicians. Rightly so. Ignorant or misled voters can be dangerous to the country. Let the politicians take their chances.