Several commenters on Daily Kos have sent me private messages about the primary debates. Their point is always the same: The debates tell them very little. Lots of style, not a lot of substance. At times, I think about that as well: It’s as though we have come into a period of press conferences occurring at the same time, with people sticking so rigidly to their points that an actual discussion of substance doesn’t happen—instead, zingers, big moments, and well-written one-liners are all the talk the next day.
What if we handled debates differently? What if our debate format focused on substance over style, a candid discussion by the candidates about the issues that would actually help the American public know who they are and how they work?
There are ways to accomplish that. We can develop better, more substantive debates. And the format to do it may look very different than what we see today on major news networks. It might look a bit more like The View than like Lincoln versus Douglas. Would that be so wrong?
Since the mid-1800s, the format for most political debates in this country has been what high school students around the country (and others) refer to as the Lincoln-Douglas debate: individuals at podiums making points.
The layout of the original Lincoln-Douglas debates was quite different from what we experience today. The National Forensic League high school debate society describes the history of the LD debate.
In 1858 there was a Senate Race in Illinois between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. At the time, Stephen Douglas was the incumbent, but in an attempt to take Douglas’s seat, Lincoln challenged Douglas to a series of debates. Although the exact format of the debates were slightly different than the Lincoln-Douglas of today (back then the first speaker spoke for 60 minutes, the second had a 90 minute rebuttal, and then the first speaker had a 30 minute rebuttal/time for closing arguments) the adversarial nature of the debates was similar.
Of course, no one today is speaking in a 60-minute straight block. The audience wouldn’t tolerate it. However, the brevity of our response system right now means that during a debate, very few points of substance are actually conveyed. This leaves our candidates subject to quick attacks that don’t provide the audience with a means by which to judge what was said, what was proposed, and whether there are actual alternatives.
This buzzword-style debate could be changed and improved. How? By moving beyond an adversarial debate into a substance-based cooperative format that promotes actual discussion.
The format does exist
A round table or discussion format encourages exchanges that put substance and thought process above zingers. When students sit to debate issues, for example, it is easy to see cooperative thought in a table format.
The corporate world and TV talk shows have adopted this more conversational, fluid format. When candidates sit down, led by a moderator or moderators, and are closer to one another, they are less likely to launch zinger attacks and more likely to have substantive discussions, discussions that can make positions clearer and more understandable to the public. Isn’t that what we really want?
In 1990, David E. Procter, an associate professor of speech communication at Kansas State University, produced a discussion of “dynamic spectacle,” a look at the dynamic means of persuasion accomplished through a spectacle or event. At this point, political debates are far more spectacle than process, a means to draw audiences and promote static positions.
What if we harnessed that dynamic spectacle in a way that would get us to think about our discussions in a new way?
Issue-focused tables
Imagine if you will a 90-minute primary debate structured somewhat like a general election debate, but around Democratic issues. There are 30 minutes focused on the environment, 30 minutes on foreign policy, and 30 minutes on the economy, in a roundtable format. By using our time more effectively and encouraging discussion instead of zingers, we could offer the community a chance to see the dynamic spectacle of the Democratic process.
If that isn’t doable, we can accomplish many of these goals by creating such a spectacle by focusing on issues and altering the way in which we debate— making changes that will help the audience focus on substance over style.
There is room for improvement
Most important in how we build Democratic debates for the future is that we understand that there will always be room for improvement, to tinker with our formats, to try things that are new and different. The decision to change formats or offer alternative ways to handle a debate can be exciting for an audience and motivating for a candidate.
Part of involving our community in Democratic politics is to understand that communication methods can vary based on numerous factors, from the cultural to the generational. Accepting this, we can build debates with substance and style that attract viewers. That should always be our goal.