The semiotic search for the racism beneath Newt’s food-stamp line. The dismissal of “the Constitution” in haughty air quotes. The wasting of primetime minutes pondering which wife would make the best first lady. The obsessive deposing of Romney on the legality of condoms. The condescending identity politics of carting out a token Latino to ask an immigration question. The dings. The bells. The buzzers. The Google Chat notification tones. The frightful specter of Donald Trump’s coiffure lurking around the next corner.
Advertisement
These are just some of the lowlights of the umpteen Republican debates thus far. And with the exception of The Donald’s ill-fated quest to moderate, they were all brought to us by the mainstream media. That’s the same media that daily carry water for the Obama administration, approach the tea parties as anthropological curiosities, and persistently skew the public discourse leftward in ways large and small, conscious and unconscious. So why on earth should conservatives trust them to play any substantial role in the selection of our presidential standard-bearer?
The answer, of course, is that we should not. Not again.
Sure, the debates have had their strong moments. But it is telling that a disproportionate number of them came when conservatives and conservative institutions were most involved, such as during the foreign-policy debate cosponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute; and when the fire of the candidates (particularly Newt) was trained on the moderators and the media itself.
Watching Gingrich savagely skewer moderators has been, at times, richly satisfying. But it is satisfying in the same way that having ice cream instead of eating your vegetables is satisfying: Neither is salutary in the long run. While dismantling the presuppositions of the political media is surely a skill a conservative president would do well to acquire, it does not rank with the ability to clearly and persuasively articulate a conservative policy vision for solving America’s most pressing problems, or with the ability to display fiscal sobriety, strategic acumen, and strong instincts toward liberty when presented with new challenges, foreign and domestic. These abilities — and not the ability to cleverly parry liberal inanities — are what the primary debates are meant to test.
But getting substantive answers requires moderators interested in asking substantive questions. And with few exceptions, none of the current lot have shown themselves to be up to the task.
Therefore, Republicans should work to improve the quality of the debates by building on the model of the AEI/Heritage debate. To this end, we favor the plan recently floated by Hugh Hewitt. Come the 2016 election season, the RNC should set the number, dates, and locations of debates. They should be fewer in number than the 20-odd we will see before this year is out, so that they are not so unduly agenda-setting. And the party should partner with local party officials, conservative think tanks, alternative media, tea-party groups, and grassroots organizations to determine formatting and questions. For broadcasting purposes, the participation of mainstream media may still be necessary, but they should be relegated to the status of junior partners. There can be no more George Stephanopouli asking sideshow questions premised on making conservatives look weird and driving up ratings.
Primaries are, in the best sense of the word, parochial affairs. So it is only right and reasonable that they be organized in the best interests of the party. The alternative is to hope MSNBC and CNN come into the flock between now and 2016. Don’t hold your breath.
Why wait until 2016? Replace the cancelled CNN one with one sponsored and ran by Heritage et al and you can bet none of the candidates would dare *not* have time for it. In addition, allow all 4 major networks to have a place, just a secondary one. Reporters, cameras if they want and interviews and/or possibly straw polls of attendees afterwards.
I was going to keep it to policy questions, but each candidate has a major problem that *will* be used against them in a general election if they win the primary. Address it now and get their answers out there before the questions are even raised.
My suggestion: One question, 3 minutes to respond. The candidates get the question they're going to be asked well in advance. No gotcha questions.
Romney: His Mormon faith and how it would affect is possible Presidency.
Santorum: Contraception and abortion and his Catholic faith.
Gingrich: Callista and his previous marriages. He cannot ignore this. The media won't let him, especially in a general election against Obama.
(As a side note, having each potential First Lady have a 1 minute response to the question "What would you bring to the table as a First Lady?" would allow them to be introduced more to the general population.)
Paul: Not just Nazis and Aryan nation adherents, but *all* the conspiracy theorists seem to gravitate to him. Why?
The rest would consist of policy questions and current issues. Each candidate asked identical questions and given the same time constraints to answer them.
I agree with your argument but need to point out that there were several formats that were effective: the Cain/Gingrich debate; the Huntsman/Gingrich debate-though generally not commented on were very enlightening and substantive. I also thought that the Charlie Rose 'round the kitchen table' was very good. On the other hand the Huckabee AG format was inquisitorial and demeaning. Never liked the podium-style one minute baiting fest but that is the fertilizer for the sound-bite degradation that passes for political analysis and doom and gloom prognoses.
I watched that Heritage debate and think you're over-inflating the supposed highmindedness of the questions. If I recall, many questions were of the leading, non-challenging, "Wouldn't you agree with me?" kind that offered little insight into the candidates' thinking and little for non-Beltway ordinary people to chew on.
Unless, I hope you're not suggesting, that's the point.
I agree fully the debate-as-game-show format is repulsive, but does anyone doubt it will be exactly the same (if not worse) for the next round of Democratic primary candidates?
but does anyone doubt it will be exactly the same (if not worse) for the next round of Democratic primary candidates?
Yes, I do.
Republican debate question at a debate moderated by any of the media wing of the democrat party: "When did you decide that it was best to deny birth control to women?"
Democrat debate moderated by same: "Boxers or briefs?"
This is a new idea? How pathetic that our side, which really does have better solutions to the nation's problems, can't figure out how not to let the MSM skewer our candidates every 4 years.
I don't know if the debates have been quite as bad as the editors think. Many people have not really watched them. That said, they make a lot of good points and I agree that the RNC should get more involved. If we could trust the MSM to be neutral, it would be something else. However, whether purposefully or not, they have shown their bias and should not be given such a role in the debates again. Plus, there has just been WAY too many of these debates. It's been nice to have a breather from them for the past few weeks, the debates and also the pundits pontificating about them were getting annoying.
You're right -- I watched part of one of the early debates and resolved not to waste my time going forward. It's like the twisted offspring of Let's Make A Deal and the evening news.
The debate structure needs change for sure.
I think a better approach would be to have fewer debates with timing and structure controlled by the RNC, have the MSM (and that includes FNC whose debates were as bad as CNN's) do a limited number, say 3 or 4, and the rest handled as per the NRO editorial.
There is definitely some value in having a few MSM debates since the media will eventually get in their gotcha questions and it's useful for the candidates to experience that early in the cycle and I also agree with Frank1914 that the Heritage debate by contrast was dull and not particularly enlightening.
Also, there were way too many early debates with 8 candidates. The schedule should be arranged to allow a few such debates and then be arranged to narrow it down to 3 or 4 candidates.
Other possible improvements for some of the debates:
1.Have a debate or two where only the candidates prepare the questions that will be asked of each other, e.g., Gingrich prepares and asks questions of Santorum, Romney and Paul and the moderator is only there as a time-keeper/referee.
2. Permit only substantive questions (as defined by some RNC-specified procedure) and have longer candidate answer times, e.g., 3-5 minutes.
3. Eliminate the audiences: this isn't a game show. One of the better debates was the one Huckabee sponsored with the Attorneys General and that had no audience.
Last, the CNBC debate where only a single issue, in that case economics, was discussed is a good idea. Unfortunately the CNBC moderators were more interested in giving speeches and scoring points themselves which ruined that debate, but the format is a good one if you have better questioners.
"Watching Gingrich savagely skewer moderators has been, at times, richly satisfying. But it is satisfying in the same way that having ice cream instead of eating your vegetables is satisfying: Neither is salutary in the long run."
Pure crap. The conservative equivalent of PC speech. You disdain the precise thing that is galvanizing conservatives. Just because we don't really like Newt doesn't mean that his attacks on the MSM aren't absolutely welcome and motivating.
Its because the GOP is full of RINO cowards who wish they could be leftist anyway but know that they have to control Republicans to keep taxes low and the loopholes open for the mega rich. So every year we get ordered around by the leftist establishment so RINOs can prove that they're still good to go with leftist elites.
I would like to apply for a job at NR. I have been saying for decades what has just dawned on the esteemed editors. Just think what I could add to the editorial conferences!
I've told Rich Lowry on numerous occasions that I refuse to purchase a subscription as long as he is editor. (Boy, is WFB missed terribly.) The only reason I cruise on in is Jonah Goldberg and Victor Davis Hanson; all the rest, including Rich, I'm sorry to say, are beltway clue-l-e-s-s.
I believe it was Fox News' Chris Wallace who opened that debate with the question about Newt's divorce that looked and sounded as MSM as the rest. Newt was ready for it and made Chris Wallace resemble Chris Mathews.
I like the idea of non-newscasters moderating the debates.
The only reason the RNC would have to worry about the numbers/sponsors of debates in 2016 would be if Obama wins this November. Is this the assumed outcome? Because if that's the way this particular cookie crumbles, Republican debates will be the least of our concerns.
Actually, there is another way that we will need to worry about debates for the nomination in 2016. Any one of the four men still competing this year could win, beat Obama, then proceed to be such a horrid excuse for a president that there are multiple challengers to him in 2016, or his approval ratings are so low that he chooses not to run for re-electiion.
My reason for pointing this out is this: opinions of these men who are vying for our party's nomination are so wildly disparate that virtually no Republican anywhere does not fear that at least one of them, were he to be elected, is capable of such abject failure. And that, my friends, is a sorry situation when we are about to be engaged in trying to prevent four more years of the worst president in American history.
Yes, they herd the hopefuls into the liberal media woodshed where the arrogant questioners hate us to begin with, think that they're better than us by far, and design their questions solely to excrete embarrassing sound bites to loop endlessly in tomorrow's newscast. The whole thing is an agenda-driven travesty, destructive and predictably cynical. And yet the candidates are lured through that door over and over again, taking the bait, hoping for some objectivity they will never find. I think that's called insanity.
