The first of three scheduled debates between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry will be televised on Thursday. If you are expecting a rousing, confrontational battle of wits, you are sure to be disappointed. This so-called debate is a fraud — a bipartisan political stunt better described as a side-by-side press conference than an argument over ideas.
We feel the rules shaping presidential debates should be radically restructured to provide the public with a true forum for choosing the best person to lead the free world.
Ironically, the debates are the one time during the election that the two major parties work together as one, united in their common goal of disenfranchising third-party candidates and protecting their carefully constructed images.
This directly conflicts with the will and interests of the voter. According to a recent Zogby poll, 57 percent of Americans feel that Ralph Nader should participate in the televised debates. An even greater percentage of Republicans and Independents (62 percent) believe that Nader should appear.
The collusion between the two major parties is designed to stifle debate, not encourage it. Every four years both campaigns negotiate and sign a “Memorandum of Understanding,” which regulates every detail of the debate from the heights of the podiums to the angles of the TV cameras. In the past this document has been kept secret, but this year, after intense pressure, the ridiculous 31-page agreement was released to the media. Here are a few highlights:
other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions;”
- “The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges;”
- “No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate;”
- “At no time during these debates shall either candidate move from their designated area;”
- “The candidates shall shake hands.”
The debates will be held in front of a live studio audience, though the audience members will be instructed “not to applaud, speak, or otherwise participate in the debate by any means other than by silent observation.” Sounds more like a dead studio audience than a live one.
The only person allowed to participate is the moderator, who was agreed upon by both campaigns, and is responsible for preparing questions ahead of time. Even during the second debate, which will employ a “town hall” style, the audience questions must first be approved by the moderator. Audience members who deviate from their prepared approved question will have their microphones turned off.
As in years past, this process ensures that important questions will remain unasked. And even if important questions are asked, the short predetermined time limits for answers will ensure that memorized one-liners and talking points rule the day, not insightful, in-depth discussion.
These are not the conditions for real debate. The Commission on Presidential Debates is doing a terrible disservice to our democracy. In the absence of engaging debate, the public will be forced to choose between two men that have said as little of substance as possible and let others do their dirty work.
We need more debates. Third-party
candidates with adequate support, such as Ralph Nader, should be allowed to participate. The public should be allowed to ask
unvetted questions about any topic. And the candidates should be free to ask direct questions of each other.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
