Debates

Watching last night’s Presidential debate in a local pub, I was suddenly struck by something (not a dart, happily). These guys don’t really disagree on much of anything when it comes to foreign policy.

How is this possible, you may ask. These guys couldn’t be more different, you may say.

Fair enough. But, let’s look at the actual transcript of the debate.

The debate on foreign policy (which followed extensive debate on the financial crisis) consisted of 5 “lead questions”. Here are the questions, and the candidates’ heavily redacted answers. (I have tried to cut out everything that did not directly answer the question posed by the moderator, Jim Lehrer).

Canada’s leaders debates are dysfunctional. Viewers hoping get a real sense of who the candidates are and what they stand for are too often disappointed. As Rex Murphy points out, they’re often highly-scripted affairs, resulting in a lack of substance and authenticity. I agree with Rex that we need more debates, but if we’re going to make these events worthy of missing Grey’s Anatomy, the format has to be changed drastically.

An ideal debate format would knock the candidates off their talking points and force them to engage in a genuine discussion. Admittedly, no format will ever get a disciplined politician to ignore her message entirely, but it can encourage moments of spontaneity and expose overly-scripted participants. In order to accomplish this, I think we need a format that’s as open and free-wielding as possible.