Media Rants: A Presidential Debate Alternative

A Presidential Debate Alternative                                             

Media Rants by

Tony Palmeri 

from the May 2012 issue of The SCENE 

As a public speaking teacher, I appreciate televised presidential debates. Showing my students just 30 minutes from any one of the current campaign season’s panoply of Republican primary gabfests is a great lesson for them on what NOT to do: don’t pander to your audience, don’t show up unprepared, don’t respond to every question with tired talking points, don’t exaggerate your accomplishments, don’t pathetically pass off your partisan opinions as facts, don’t cheap shot your opponents, and don’t lie with statistics. Even better, don’t lie at all. 

As an American citizen, I despise televised presidential debates. Mainstream journalists don’t even pretend anymore that these tightly scripted affairs offer meaningful public policy clashes. Instead, the events provide opportunities for corporate media anointed “frontrunners” and “serious challengers” to lose that status, generally by getting flustered and/or losing the post-debate spin war. When a serious public policy clash does emerge, the result can be frightening.  Last September’s CNN/Tea Party Republican party debate featured audience members actually cheering the suggestion that an uninsured 30 year old accident victim should just be left to die. Not only was that excruciating to listen to, but it may have been the lowest point ever reached in the history of cable television. 

How to account for the decline of debate? The late media critic Marshall McLuhan famously argued that platform style political debating doesn’t work in the “cool” television medium. Others posit that major political party control of the debates restricts the participation of lesser known candidates who might challenge the stale arguments of the Democrats and Republicans. Add to that the fact that establishment candidates come ready to do nothing but spew poll driven blather and the result is a bizarre state of affairs in which we seem to know less about candidates after the debate. The debates provide few clues as to how a candidate might govern if elected. 

Even if modern debates were more substantive (like Lincoln v. Douglas), the candidate skills showcased really have little to do with the leadership qualities necessary for the 21^st century presidency. Debating is rooted in the idea of the president as a policy leader; an eloquent and wise advocate who artfully sways the Congress to support legislation that might benefit the people.  


The 21^st century president can and should be a policy leader, but that responsibility is dwarfed by the day to day demands of running a massive federal bureaucracy and managing daily crises. A video of George W. Bush being briefed by federal disaster officials shortly before the arrival of Hurricane Katrina revealed how utterly unprepared the president was to manage the crisis. His questions were minimal, and he seemed to think the officials were fishing for a pep talk instead of help in solving the problem of how to coordinate the local, state, and national disaster response teams. 

TV debates give us a slight sense of how a candidate might handle Katrina. But we could construct a televised small group leadership exercise  that would be much more instructive. Here’s my proposal: 


First, the candidate would be placed on a stage with trained actors role playing various cabinet officers. 

Second, the candidate would be presented with a hypothetical scenario. For example: “Tea Party and Occupy Wall St. factions are planning October 3^rd ‘Unite To Take Our Country Back’ rallies in hundreds of US cities. The FBI and Homeland Security have evidence the rallies might lead to mass violence between the factions and against local law enforcement. The FBI and Homeland Security want to formulate strategy with the White House, including the development of clear instructions for law enforcement at the local and state levels.” 

Third, the candidate would run a 60 minute meeting with the cabinet officers he or she thinks most crucial to dealing with such situations. The candidate could raise questions, ask for information, give direction, or anything else he or she might conceivably do if this were a real event. By the end of 60 minutes, the audience should have a good idea of the management style the candidate might bring to the White House. So as to minimize one upmanship, each meeting should be taped outside the presence of other candidates and broadcast at a later date. 

I can imagine many objections to my proposal, including how to ensure candor and whether it’s appropriate to simulate in public what would be private meetings if the candidate were elected president. Those objections are outweighed by the 21^st century requirement of knowing more about potential presidents than their exaggerated resumes and ability to mouth platitudes. 

Herman Cain’s interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board, in which he reveals a total inability to hold a coherent conversation about Libya, I think is a good example of what the debate alternative is aiming for. I’d simply replace the journalists with actors. If you consider the “journalists” that typically host the debates, having them replaced by actors really isn’t that much of a leap. 

Televised presidential debates have degenerated to the point where they should be called “Dancing with the Demagogues.” My alternative is not perfect, but at least it tries to develop a way of determining if a candidate can be trusted to manage the massive power of the modern presidency.