Presidential Non-Debates

Two down, and - break out the popcorn! - infinitely more to go.

That’s where we, the people, stand in terms of the various concoctions the Republican Party, Democratic Party, and various media, have stirred up in the cauldron of silliness that are the 2016 Presidential (and, eventually, Vice Presidential) debates.

To date, a pair - OK, technically four - GOP “debates” has played out for us on television. Consider them the “appetizers” of the debate season; between October and March, 15 additional live sparring matches are scheduled (nine between the various Republican candidates, six between Democrats), plus four next fall (three presidential, one vice presidential).

The purpose of these forums is purportedly to allow voters to gain valuable information about each of the hopefuls seeking to be Commander-in-Chief after President Barack Obama’s second term expires in January 2017. This is an admirable quest; we would love to learn far more detailed ideas about dealing with important topics ranging from the economy to ISIS, health care to education, immigration to climate change.

But what has been presented thus far has been anything but enlightening, at least in terms of viable, legitimate issues we believe should be openly discussed. What has been given to us has been less than satisfying in terms of solutions to difficult problems we face in our United States.

In a 48-page report released in advance of the 2016 election season, the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center working group laid out a series of suggestions to improve presidential debates. Part of the problem, according to group organizer Kathleen Hall Jamieson, is with the way the media both sets up these forums and lets them play out.

“Right now, reporters are in a very difficult situation, because they’re trying to be traditional reporters and they are trying to moderate a debate,” Jamieson said. “And as a result, we get joint press conferences. We’re not really getting the debate. And if the moderator tries to follow up, the moderator is perceived to be unfair and sometimes the moderator is unfair.”

Thus, these “debates” are not really debates. This is because true debates are more formalized, with a more-structured timeframe. And there would not be a moderator.

Instead, we are given public platforms - open forums where the various talking heads are for the most part preaching from the same philosophical background to the same eager choir. To be a legitimate debate, the various speakers should be taking up different positions on the same questions, not responding to questions tailored to each candidate individually.

The group also suggested eliminating the live audience as part of the presentation. “As our research shows, if you have an audience that cheers or jeers or engages in any kind of heckling behavior, you can affect the outcome of the debate,” Jameson said.

I encourage the Commission on Presidential Debates to take the Annenberg study seriously, as a way to try and bring some much-needed legitimacy to the presidential debate model. I also urge the Commission to boldly go where many area high schools have, and are, going - that is, review the format incorporated by area high school debate programs, which offer students taking opposite sides on a central question and presenting sound logic, theory and empirical evidence to back up their positions. Talk to individuals with the National Speech and Debate Association, the nation’s largest high school debate organization. Talk to debate coaches at area high schools. Or debate coaches at any schools with debate programs. Or even some of the most experienced debaters on these squads. And leave the popcorn behind.