Published in this week’s Wednesday (Prattville) Progress:

The first presidential debate of the 2004 campaign will take place tomorrow night in Coral Gables, Florida. Just getting the two major party candidates in the same room together was an accomplishment. It took a thirty-two page memorandum of understanding to explain the agreement the Bush and Kerry campaigns made only a week ago.

Presidential candidates have generally been wary of televised debates ever since 1960 when the way the candidates appeared on television was said to have more of an influence than the words of the candidates. So, based on history, the debate agreement for this year’s presidential debates contains a number of interesting provisions. The one that most obviously harkens back to the sweating Nixon with a particularly unattractive five o’clock shadow is a provision that specifically allows each candidate to bring their own make-up artist. At least we know they’ll look good.

Beyond looks, the candidates’ camps were also concerned about a variety of other aesthetic issues. Another item that reminded me of past debates said the following, “When a candidate is speaking, either in answering a question or making his closing statement, TV coverage will be limited to the candidate speaking. There will be no TV cut-aways to any candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question.” So, we won’t see any embarrassing images of one candidate rolling his eyes, or any other type of reaction, while another candidate is talking.

As I read page after page of restrictions and rules it made me a little sad. Like the perfectly scripted political conventions, political debates with the potential for spontaneity significantly reduced are boring. No wonder the number of people who watch the debates, when the chances you will see something spontaneous are so small.

The candidates get so few opportunities to speak directly to the people, unfiltered by the media, that they must take full advantage of it. Even with the restrictions, the debates could have a significant impact on this very close election. Yet, wouldn’t it be better for American democracy to have true debates between the candidates about the issues of the day? No response in these debates will be longer than two minutes and most will be thirty seconds or less.

Can the problems we face in our country today really be addressed in sound bites? Are we really going to get the clearest picture of the differences between the candidates when their time is so limited. Over the course of three debates each candidate will only speak a total of a little over 90 minutes and most issues will not be addressed in much depth.

If an election is truly a battle of ideas, which we often doubt, then those ideas deserve an opportunity to be fully aired in direct comparison to the alternative. The debates as we will see them are not worthless, but they could be worth so much more if Americans simply demanded it.

Sphere: Related Content