American voters who watched and listened to the presidential and vice-presidential debates this election season probably feel a bit like the Greek philosopher Diogenes.
Diogenes has been said to have roamed the streets during the day carrying a lamp in a quest to find a virtuous man who acted with reason. It seems that the American voter who takes the time to tune in to debates has long been searching for a virtuous, reasonable moderator.
In fact, the term moderator in the context of these debates is itself false. The individuals from ABC News and CBS News who were billed as moderators for the 2024 debates were actually panelists.
Panelists question. Moderators moderate.
Moderators should introduce the candidates, explain the format, maintain decorum, keep time and inform the candidates when theirs has expired during the course of the program, and wrap up at the conclusion of the debate.
The standard for moderators was set by television newsman Howard K. Smith during the first televised debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon on September 26, 1960.
Smith kept good order and flow. He did not act like a prosecuting attorney by repeating terms such as "allegations" or hog the spotlight for himself with on-the-fly "fact-checking" directed at only one of the contestants.
Smith's contributions were largely relegated to statements such as "The next question to Vice President Nixon from Mr. Vanocur" or "Senator Kennedy's comment?"
Smith knew his place and the panelists knew theirs. Diogenes would have instantly recognized it, but would have moved swiftly away from this year's moderator/panelists.
As for the format of this exercise itself, a little creativity and a different approach in 2028 would be of benefit to American voters. Smith himself called the Kennedy-Nixon showdown a "joint appearance", though the level of discourse represented more of a traditional debate than the circus to which voters are now subjected.
There has been much speculation, wailing, and gnashing of teeth in the current and recent campaigns about certain candidates being tipped off about questions and topics in advance. What if both candidates were given the topic or topics in advance? Would that be so bad?
How much more like a true debate it would be if the candidates in either of the two debates would have discussed two or three set issues such as immigration policy, the proper role of the United States in global affairs, or the national debt.
Rather than the ridiculously dizzying, counterproductive, and unintelligent "We have so much to get to" pace of the current format, the candidates, having been given the topics in advance, could be permitted opening statements of five to eight minutes with sufficient time for rebuttals -- which means more than 90 seconds.
Such a format would permit the candidates to methodically outline their thinking regarding approaches to legislation, the role of federal agencies, and the political and social consequences of policy and rhetoric that cannot be recited in two minutes. Candidates would be forced to articulate plans and defend them. Perhaps the candidates would even be allowed to question each other, and that discussion would inevitably lead to related matters of interest and importance.
There is nothing wrong with largely taking the debate out of the hands of the moderators or panelists. If candidates and their staffs knew the specific topics of each debate ahead of time, they could prepare cogent arguments and present them to the nation. It would sharpen the candidates and give voters a more substantial measure of them.
After all, most policy and decision-making in the White House is or at least should be made after examining all of the facts and weighing the arguments, not having two minutes or 90 seconds to respond to a clever word painting by a self-important but irrelevant newsreader.
We deserve better.
While those of us involved with the movement to call an Article V convention to address the excesses of the federal government that should be discussed in these debates can't do much to alter the format of these debates, we can effect change in our own right and add real substance to American politics.
Somewhat like Diogenes, we can seek Americans from the grassroots of all political perspectives who are interested in halting the abuses of the federal government.
We can engage legislators in every state and persuade them through reason to show virtue by activating Article V of the Constitution in order to return the powers not delegated to Washington, D.C., to the people.
If you haven't yet joined us in this effort to shine a light on Article V and the politics of substance, sign the petition below:
