'DEBATES' HAVE LITTLE VALUE

The North County Times

Ricki Muller
Wednesday, September 29, 2004

So I think watching the presidential debates will be a great extra credit activity for my college composition students. And I'm thinking ---- maybe they will discover real reasons to support or challenge their candidate. Maybe they will think critically about their choices. Maybe they will engage in the political process. Maybe they will be motivated to vote. Maybe they will learn something. You think?

According to George Farah, author of the book "No Debate," the presidential debates are no more than 90 minutes of scripted sound bites, presenting Republican and Democratic candidates in the best possible light while minimizing any risk of a "wrong" answer. In fact, Farah charges, the debates are so meticulously staged by the presidential candidates themselves that, with the help of the debate sponsor ---- a bipartisan corporation called the Commission on Presidential Debates ---- the spontaneity and confrontation of historical debates has utterly vanished.

All of the debate rules are outlined in a 32-page contract, called a memorandum of understanding, negotiated between the two parties and the commission. The corporation evolved out of irritation with the debate structure implemented by the genuinely nonpartisan League of Women Voters.

Under the League of Women Voters, spontaneity and confrontation were expected and welcomed as part of the debates. According to "Deterring Democracy: How the Commission of Presidential Debates Undermines Democracy," a report issued last month by a dozen voting rights groups: "When the League of Women Voters sponsored the debates, panelists and moderators were always permitted to ask follow-up questions, which allowed them to get past the rehearsed answers of candidates, really delve into issues, and challenge the responses of candidates."

But, spontaneity can be devastating in debates. Ask Jimmy Carter, who was on the receiving end of Ronald Reagan's "There you go again," or George H. W. Bush, who, when asked how he could identify with the economic challenges of lower- and middle-class citizens, had no answer.

Such gaffes resulted in tighter rules for debates and insured the permanent ouster of the League of Women Voters because it refused to participate in debates structured to hoodwink Americans.

In 1986, the Commission on Presidential Debates assumed responsibility for the debates and, cloaked in secrecy, began to implement rules which included bipartisan negotiations, format manipulation, candidate exclusion and issue exclusion. Walter Cronkite, the former CBS News anchor, calls the CPD-sponsored debates an "unconscionable fraud" because "the candidates participate only with the guarantee of a format that defies meaningful discourse."

So, are the debates worth my students' efforts? The candidates know the topics, but are not provided the specific questions ahead of time. Of course, they only have two minutes to respond to questions about foreign affairs and homeland security, including issues of Iraq and terrorism.

With only two minutes, how hard can the questions be and how thorough the answers? There are 16 questions to get through in 90 minutes, so there will be no genuine discussion, just a fragmented recital of positions that will not be challenged by anyone.

Even so, will the debates define the issues that voters really care about? Will the debates illuminate the areas of agreement and disagreement? Will the debates offer my students an opportunity to size up the candidates in ways they are denied on the news and in political advertisements? Will the debates motivate my students (will they motivate anyone?) to become a part of the political process?

Well, I guess that depends on how much critical thought the debates actually provoke.