Rumor has it that back in 1963, JFK and Barry Goldwater chatted about campaigning together, should Goldwater win the Republican nomination. Each would give opening statements and then respond to the other over the course of campaign rallies. In recent weeks, Senators Obama and McCain have revived the idea. I suppose it's worth pursuing, but is that all we can imagine?
On the one hand, I can't imagine the logistical nightmare that would ensue. They'll have to figure out how to address those problems and they'll have to decide on the venue. After all, if Obama can draw 75,000 people to a campaign rally in Portland, Oregon in the waning days of a primary contest, then who knows what the two major contenders could draw. Do they want to debate at the Big House in Ann Arbor? They could probably fill the place, but what sort of debate would that be? I'd also urge them to have debates with specific resolutions and some more freewheeling formats. So, there'd be a lot of details to be worked out and I can't imagine, as both of them have occasionally suggested, that this would be a regular thing.
On the other hand, both are likely to be eager for such an encounter for one simple reason. If the primary season has proven anything, it has unequivocally demonstrated that American journalism possesses not a single competent moderator. They've been beyond bad. Charlie Gibson and lil George take the cake for the awful debate in Philadelphia, but that excrement should not cast a rosy glow over past debates. Russert, Williams, Blitzer, et.al., have been horrible. I don't believe that these people are stupid. I suspect, however, that the growing size of star network salaries combined with the increasing competition for those dollars, the increasing demand for ratings, and the ideological edge pioneered by Fox and picked up by MSNBC, have all combined to alter the dynamic. These anchors are more concerned with their own performances than they are with the candidates or the American people. The journalists have a simple goal: ask the question that creates the YouTube moment. We've got in place now a system that offers structural incentives for newspeople to behave badly when moderating debates. Given that Obama, in particular, has had to endure an endless number of these circuses, he's got to figure that a one-on-one with McCain simply cannot be any worse. I also suspect that both Obama (from his formal speech rhetorical skills) and McCain (from his town hall skills) possess enough confidence in themselves to be willing to run with this format. Typically, however, "wise" old advisors tend to stop this sort of thing from happening.
If that is the case, then I strongly urge them to go outside the norm on moderators and even formats. Make up a panel of, say, four student body presidents from different kinds of universities: Harvard, Macalester, the University of Texas, and Fresno State. Think about the prominent public intellectuals out there. Might it be fun to have a panel made up of Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michael Beschloss, and Douglas Brinkley? Or Martha Nussbaum, Richard Posner, and Garry Wills? Think about having two party elders host one. Yes, they'll be partisan, but they might also be more interesting, esp. if they're well out of it. Might a debate hosted by Alan Simpson and Mario Cuomo be interesting? Or even Bob Dole and Al Gore?
These are all just ideas, but that's my point. We've shown a distinct lack of imagination when thinking about these encounters. It's either a press conference or it's Lincoln/Douglas (that's Stephen, not Fred, Fox). Why not play with this a bit and see if there's an alternative?
Comments