Debating the Debates
Having gone through two presidential debates, and with the prospect of being subjected to one more tomorrow night, I thought it would be instructive to look back at the definition of the word itself. I have a sneaking suspicion that what we label as the modern political debate is in fact no such thing. (At least, it may be modern and political, but it is no debate.)
I have unfortunately lost access to the trusty Oxford English Dictionary, so, loathe though I am to do it, we will turn to Merriam-Webster:
debate: a contention by words or arguments as A) the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure or B) a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
It’s fairly obvious that our current topic falls within definition B: “a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.” So let’s take this bit by bit:
- “regulated discussion”: The current debates fit this, ostensibly. It depends, of course, on whether Tom Brokaw’s desperate attempts to make Obama and McCain stick to their time limits qualify. In the end, however, I think that in the ideal debate the regulation comes from the debating parties themselves rather than a third-party moderator.
- “of a proposition”: Again, we ostensibly fit this idea. The debates are usually framed around a series of questions put to the candidates. The candidates then reply via their alloted time.
- “between two matched sides”: This is the only part that we get completely correct. We may even get it too correct, thanks to today’s TV culture. Candidates are matched in time, posture, terminology, and more, all to remove any possible advantage one could have from appearences.
On the surface of the definition we seem to be doing fairly well, yet anyone who has watched a political debate knows that something is horribly wrong with the system. But where have we gone wrong? I would suggest it is because we need to look earlier in the definition of debate: “a contention by words or arguments.” And there we find it: we’re lacking arguments. Debates today are far too much about one of three things:
- Look at my record.
- Look at his record.
- Soundbyte.
What they are not about is arguments, at least in the traditional definition (again from Merriam-Webster): “a reason given in proof or rebuttal.” I do not call “he voted to raise taxes 94 times” or “he will give $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies” a logical line of reasoning. Whether or not such statments are true, they are not a logical proof of why the candidate in question will be effective or ineffective.
Reason would sound like:
- Tax cuts for American families, which I propose to provide, will put more money in their pockets, allowing them to invest and thus increasing our savings rate and promoting future growth in GDP.
- Following a surge-like strategy in Afghanistan will promote confidence by putting enough troops on the ground to deal with the violence and begin building relationships with local leaders.
- Following a surge-like strategy in Afghanistan will not work because the problem is not with the number of troops but with how we engage both our enemies and our friends.
- Offshore drilling should not be pursued because the effects are minimal, especially when seen in light of the global oil market.
Instead we get politicians arguing back and forth only in the sense of “argument” that means “two children quarelling.” They say plenty of words, but with very little logic behind them. The problem, I suppose, is as much with us, the audience, as with the candidates. Both candidates are intelligent men who can present a logical argument if they want to (and if you don’t think this is true you’re deluding yourself) . But, sad to say, soundbytes and accusations are what work on us and thus that’s what the candidates use.
The solution? There probably isn’t one. But here’s a rough idea of what I think should be tried someday. Instead of a debate in front of a live audience, with millions more watching on TV, the two candidates sholud be locked in a room together for a day. They would be given a list of topics that to consider together, with two allowable means of responding:
- A joint proposal laying out how to solve the issue.
- Separate essays on the issue, in which mentioning the other candidate is forbidden.
The debate over the course of the day could be recorded if necessary, but it would not be live. Afterward the candidates would have a chance to address the audience. On each issues they would either present their joint proposal or give an outline of their essay, again without mentioning the other candidate, and the logic behind their idea.
It would, of course, be nice to have a live debate in which the candidates could discuss ideas and argue about the logic behind them instead of who did what. I just don’t think that’s possible in today’s media. My idea is an attempt to force such conversation.
Granted, it probably would not be as interesting to watch (I said we were part of the problem, didn’t I?). But it would at least force the candidates to give “a reason given in proof” for their “contention by words or arguments.” Then we could really have a debate.
