Historical November–December 2019 article. Dates, prices, services and contacts describe the source period; current availability has not been established.
Watching the throngs standing behind podiums and trading putdowns and syllables at the recent Democratic presidential debates gave me pause.
It wasn’t that candidate A was terrific or that I would be pleased to vote for candidate A, B, C, or, even G. Rather, as the program ended and I began to watch “Belching With the Stars,” I thought: Is this really the best way to choose a presidential candidate? Being the president of the USA is an important role. That person has an incredible impact on the economy, determines if we go to war, and pardons a turkey each Thanksgiving.
This is not a shabby job.
He or she will be written about in textbooks and portrayed by an animated figure in the Hall of Presidents at Disney World. What’s not to like? So naturally, lots of people aspire to be the leader of the free world. Presidential candidates used to be determined in smoke-filled rooms at political conventions. Sometimes delegates had to vote, vote, and vote again.
In 1924, it took 103 ballots for the Dems to select John W. Davis as their candidate.
All those ballots didn’t lead to success because Davis was trounced by the garrulous Calvin Coolidge. At other times, a consensus was easily reached at a convention, but the candidate was a lemon. Who can forget Richard Nixon or Michael Dukakis? Now, of course, we have televised debate upon debate to determine who should lead the ticket.
The debates feel endless, like the long line of cars on Skinker Boulevard when you are in a hurry to get somewhere.
I vacillate between thinking “It’s cool that the selection process is so transparent” and “Who are these people, anyway???” A few of the folks behind a podium are people of stature who just might be on the national ticket, but most are wanna-be folks, politicos who are debating to further their careers or raise money.
The presence of so many candidates hand-fighting on the stage is not without a cost.
Some people think that our current president, Donald J. Voldemort, gained political credibility because it was easy for him to stand out among the throng of candidates. That possibility, alone, should cause us to narrow the size of the crowd.
But once narrowed to four or six legitimate candidates on the stage, the process can still be cumbersome and soporific.
But it need not be that way! Yes, dear reader, Hawkeye offers some quick changes that can turn the political debates into high drama television and ensure that the candidates from which we choose are wise, honorable, and distain Twitter.
First, let’s scrap the current posse of folks asking questions. Just because someone reads the news doesn’t mean that they will be a good interrogator.
I would like to see Jeopardy’s Alex Trebek be the sole panelist. Instead of asking a question, he’d announce an answer, such as, “Moscow, chicanery, and Donald Trump,” and then the candidates would pose their questions. Imagine the questions the candidates would offer in response to “Income taxes, fat cats, and poverty” or “Carbon emissions and submarines.” Their responses would be compelling viewing and would share their thinking.
If Alex Trebek wasn’t available, how about the questioner being Oprah Winfrey or Violet Crawley from Dowton Abbey? Neither of these formidable women would allow candidates to give fuzzy answers or be downright nasty.
I never thought that I would worry about public nastiness in a presidential campaign, but that was before President Voldemort’s new and very low bar for public discourse. Part of being an effective leader is to surround yourself with folks who have skills and knowledge that you lack, so we could borrow from the show “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?” and allow candidates who are stumped to make a public phone call to an expert before responding to questions.
I can envision President Voldemort calling someone and asking, “How many states are there in the union?” For that matter, it would be interesting to see who candidates chose to be their resources. I’d never vote for anyone, for example, who identified Dick Cheney or Rudy Giuliani as a person to whom they would turn for advice. Give me someone who turns to the Post’s Bill McClellan.
Finally, a big piece of leadership is how you respond to a situation for which you are unprepared. So let’s radically alter the debate format.
We could take the candidates from behind the podium, put them in separate rooms, and see how they respond to a real problem. What do they do when confronted by a homeless person asking for money? How do they respond when they overhear someone yelling a racist statement? How do they react if they learn that a foreign government has tried to influence the election in their favor? Canned speeches and talking points are one thing, but it would be illustrative to see what a candidate does in a real situation (as real as it can be when televised, anyway). And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be great at moderating this!
All of my debate suggestions would increase voter turnout and that’s a good thing.
I would like to have to wait in line to cast my ballot.
Originally published in The Times of Skinker-DeBaliviere, November–December 2019.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times2019_11.pdf, printed page(s) 8; PDF page(s) 5.
