Democratic lawmakers are leery about the prospect of President Biden debating former President Trump, fearing that putting the two on stage together would only elevate the likely GOP nominee. Trump…
I like this kind of idea, but to be honest, I’m still uncertain of the value added by the debate format.
A president doesn’t pass policies by debate. They formulate an agenda and work with policy experts to construct a means to achieving those items. They form a cabinet, which ideally consist of people skilled in management and with enough subject matter expertise that they can provide a similar approach to the management of their various departments, and so on.
Debates are simply theatrical performances that are not replicated nor relevant to the job of the executive. They have scripted lines that they try to fit in, they’re coached on talking points and how to deflect on subjects their handlers don’t want them to talk about.
I vastly prefer policy positions published in detail and unscripted interviews with professional journalists who are not looking to protect their access but rather to both clarify points the candidates have made and more importantly to bring up issues that are relevant but which the candidates have avoided.
To be crude, I literally don’t give a fuck that the line “I knew John F Kennedy, and you’re no John F Kennedy” was one of the best retorts in (vice) presidential debate history, and anyone who would vote on that kind of thing - in my opinion - is not properly exercising their choice.
I’m okay with stump speeches - I think they’re still pretty useless for many of the same reasons - but they do give a sense of the personality of the candidate and their approach to addressing the public. That is an important factor - the charisma effect - and I think we should keep them around.
I like this kind of idea, but to be honest, I’m still uncertain of the value added by the debate format.
A president doesn’t pass policies by debate. They formulate an agenda and work with policy experts to construct a means to achieving those items. They form a cabinet, which ideally consist of people skilled in management and with enough subject matter expertise that they can provide a similar approach to the management of their various departments, and so on.
Debates are simply theatrical performances that are not replicated nor relevant to the job of the executive. They have scripted lines that they try to fit in, they’re coached on talking points and how to deflect on subjects their handlers don’t want them to talk about.
I vastly prefer policy positions published in detail and unscripted interviews with professional journalists who are not looking to protect their access but rather to both clarify points the candidates have made and more importantly to bring up issues that are relevant but which the candidates have avoided.
To be crude, I literally don’t give a fuck that the line “I knew John F Kennedy, and you’re no John F Kennedy” was one of the best retorts in (vice) presidential debate history, and anyone who would vote on that kind of thing - in my opinion - is not properly exercising their choice.
I’m okay with stump speeches - I think they’re still pretty useless for many of the same reasons - but they do give a sense of the personality of the candidate and their approach to addressing the public. That is an important factor - the charisma effect - and I think we should keep them around.