GAVEL GAMUT
By Jim Redwine
www.jamesmredwine.com
(Week of 12 October 2020)
BETTER BUT STILL NO CIGAR
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Debates are good in theory. But as currently practiced, they could be better. While both major political parties publish their platforms, hardly any of us read them. Also, if we did, we would have to filter them through lenses of biases, the parties’ and our own. Live debates where ideas, proposals, promises and past performances are tested by opponents are much more likely to inform the electorate than either party’s talking points. So, if we can agree debates are good in theory, how can we enhance their value? As my personal education, training and experience has involved the courtroom model, I have a preference for a similar system for debating the complicated issues our politicians must resolve.
If the candidates were trying a lawsuit over what is the better system of addressing health care, the economy, international diplomacy, education, immigration, infrastructure, racial-gender-ethnicity matters, law and order or the environment, just to name some of our nation’s and the world’s complex and often interrelated problems, we would not require each leader to state their entire case in two minutes with a fifteen second follow-up as a “judge†attempts to keep the proceeding on track.
If each major party and any qualifying third party was required to establish its nominees by September first of the presidential election year, we would have two months to schedule debates. Of course, the candidates could campaign and raise issues as they see fit outside of the debates but the debate schedule would be determined by the non-partisan Federal Election Commission. The Commission would have the authority to choose topics and procedures but only one in-depth examination of a single topic, say Health Care, would be discussed. The candidates could present their own visions for addressing our nation’s health care and would also have the right to contrast their vision with their interpretation of their opponent’s vision. The debates should be an hour long with each side having twenty minutes to present their positions, then each side would have ten minutes to respond to the opponent’s statements. The order of presentation would be determined by a coin flip. The judge’s role would be strictly to enforce time limits and confinement to the specific subject area.
Almost no one can pay attention to anything but a ballgame or a gossip column for more than twenty minutes at a time. And most Americans may prefer watching sausage being made to watching the debates. However, the option would be there and it should be paid for out of the Federal Election Commission assets so no one is tempted to put their thumb on the scale.
As we all have experienced, nothing is as dangerous and wrong as a quick and facile answer to a complex problem. And, we certainly are facing numerous tough issues in numerous areas. We can encourage our politicians to carefully analyze these sticky wickets and then be prepared to tell us how they would deal with them if they receive our votes.
I suggest we encourage debates but that we devise a system where they are actually valuable. It is not the fault of the candidates if we try to force two-minute answers to life-time problems. Perhaps we should give them a chance to surprise us. And we still have some time before November third. We could, at least, hold two or three debates of critical issues before we have the necessity of locking ourselves into a four-year sentence.
For more Gavel Gamut articles go to www.jamesmredwine.com
Or “Like/Follow†us on Facebook & Twitter at JPegRanchBooks&Knitting
