THOSE WHO watched the presidential debate last Friday between Barack Obama and John McCain may have noticed subtle changes in the format compared to previous years. The candidates may have finally recognized that the tried-and-true formula for conducting presidential debates failed to accomplish its goals, but the changes still have not gone far enough. The debates need to require more off-the-cuff thinking, spontaneity and interaction between the candidates in order to be truly informative to the electorate.
The format for this year’s debates calls for two-minute responses to the initial question, followed by discussion ranging from one to five minutes. Jim Lehrer, moderator of the first debate, did a respectable job of pressing candidates for answers to certain questions, but what is truly needed is sharp interaction between the two candidates. The debates, even with the new changes, still feel too often like recitations of sound bites because of the barrier that exists between the two participants and the predictability of the responses.
Viewers are unlikely to remember numerous points outlined in a long monologue; seeing the differences between the candidates highlighted in a sharp give-and-take would resonate more strongly. Thus, I would propose that the moderator take a less active role and allow the two nominees to police themselves and determine who says what and when during the discussion sections. Such a format would require the ability for candidates to think on their feet more and would revealingly show us how each person treats his opponent.
This would give the American public a greater sense of whether a candidate is angry or hostile in the face of opposing viewpoints or whether he struggles to respond to direct inquiries from his adversary. The moderator could, of course, intervene if one candidate was treating his opponent unfairly, but the ability to see that character flaw would be invaluable. Such moments would provide clues not only about how a president might interact with his advisors, congressmen, and foreign ambassadors and leaders, but also about the quality of his reactions to unforeseen situations.
On the TV show ”The West Wing,” the format for the debate between incumbent president Josiah Bartlet and his challenger required that each candidate pose a question to his opponent at the end of his initial response to the moderator’s question. This is precisely the kind of change that the real-world debates need, for it would likely take the discussion into different areas than it would otherwise go. Naturally, consultants and speech writers could help prepare possible questions, but they could not foresee all the questions an opponent might ask, and they cannot script all the answers. As it presently stands, candidates can too easily predict the direction of the discussion and thus script all of their responses, eliminating independent, spontaneous thinking; more give-and-take and questioning of each other would bring unpredictability, which is exactly how debates should be.
One might rightly argue that, thanks to speech writers and press secretaries, presidents rarely speak spontaneously while in office. But before an election, when we’re trying to learn about their views and depth of understanding of complicated issues, this skill can be informative. If a candidate cannot craft an intelligent response to an unexpected question, if he cannot go beyond the prepared sound bites, viewers might naturally start to question his ability to think independently and his level of readiness for office.
A large reason such changes need to be made is that contemporary debates do not always accomplish what they were set out to do. Thanks in large part to the media, they become a vehicle for determining which candidate is more charismatic and telegenic. When the debates follow a predictable course, when viewers feel bored watching them, the impressions gleaned will inevitably be based on less substantive issues. People have an inherent tendency to focus more on a speaker’s appearance and style than his words, but allowing for more interaction between the candidates and less predictable courses of debate would, hopefully, shift attention where it belongs, on the issues.
Interestingly, McCain attempted to engage Obama in a series of town-hall style discussions over the summer, and the second presidential debate will be in the town-hall format. The town-hall format is an improvement, for having ordinary people ask questions might make the conversation less predictable, but it still does not eliminate the barrier between the candidates.
The recent format changes, as well as the differences between this year’s first two debates, remind us that debates will never be perfect, but they have the potential to offer telling clues about the viability of our presidential candidates. Getting to that point is up to us.
Grant Johnson is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
