The debates tend towards theater, and don't really give us a good idea of how the candidate will function in the day to day of horse trading at the head of the federal government.
So what would help us better understand how they'd wield the apparatus of shared power?
Their campaign speeches and such events tell us how they'd approach the bully pulpit - the president's celebrity power to influence public opinion. In theory, the debates should give us insight into how they'd handle other aspects of the job. But they don't, really.
I always thought the debate format is just a little too weird. It owes a little too much to the mannered, artificial forensic debate format.
So I wonder if something more like a long-form interview would make more sense. The candidate sits down across from a panel of interviewers, and answers a broad range of questions. Can they think on their feet? Can they give substantive answers to pressing or esoteric questions? Etc.
The trick is finding the right interviewers, and the right questions. You don't want a softball interview with pat answers written in advance. But you don't want a horror show of gotchas and sucker punches, either. Or do you?
I guess what I want is some sense of how they'll operate behind closed doors, negotiating the tough issues of the day with legislators, lobbyists, and their own cabinet. And I also want some sense of which parts of the job, and the government, they've given a lot of thought to, and which ones they really haven't examined yet.
And I guess part of the challenge is that the candidate isn't going to want to reveal his negotiating positions in advance. He may have a clear idea of what he wants to do about border control, or what it really means to be Commander in Chief, but he probably doesn't want to telegraph his intent until he's secured the best negotiating position he can.
Anyway, yeah. That's my idea. Something like American Idol, except the performance is "what I think of the Presidency". And there are a panel of judges testing the candidate's performance. A couple of former legislators (one from each party), a celebrity journalist, a regular celebrity, and Simon Cowell. Maybe crowd-source the questions. The panelists can ask questions from the audience* or questions they themselves have prepared. By having a variety of panelists, the risk of the candidate being able to fully prepare with leaked questions is lowered.
What do you think? How can we get a better idea of what the candidates will really be like in office, than via debates? Note that this is a really low bar, so probably any suggestion will be an improvement.
---
*Via some social media platform, and pre-cleared by the production staff, of course.
So what would help us better understand how they'd wield the apparatus of shared power?
Their campaign speeches and such events tell us how they'd approach the bully pulpit - the president's celebrity power to influence public opinion. In theory, the debates should give us insight into how they'd handle other aspects of the job. But they don't, really.
I always thought the debate format is just a little too weird. It owes a little too much to the mannered, artificial forensic debate format.
So I wonder if something more like a long-form interview would make more sense. The candidate sits down across from a panel of interviewers, and answers a broad range of questions. Can they think on their feet? Can they give substantive answers to pressing or esoteric questions? Etc.
The trick is finding the right interviewers, and the right questions. You don't want a softball interview with pat answers written in advance. But you don't want a horror show of gotchas and sucker punches, either. Or do you?
I guess what I want is some sense of how they'll operate behind closed doors, negotiating the tough issues of the day with legislators, lobbyists, and their own cabinet. And I also want some sense of which parts of the job, and the government, they've given a lot of thought to, and which ones they really haven't examined yet.
And I guess part of the challenge is that the candidate isn't going to want to reveal his negotiating positions in advance. He may have a clear idea of what he wants to do about border control, or what it really means to be Commander in Chief, but he probably doesn't want to telegraph his intent until he's secured the best negotiating position he can.
Anyway, yeah. That's my idea. Something like American Idol, except the performance is "what I think of the Presidency". And there are a panel of judges testing the candidate's performance. A couple of former legislators (one from each party), a celebrity journalist, a regular celebrity, and Simon Cowell. Maybe crowd-source the questions. The panelists can ask questions from the audience* or questions they themselves have prepared. By having a variety of panelists, the risk of the candidate being able to fully prepare with leaked questions is lowered.
What do you think? How can we get a better idea of what the candidates will really be like in office, than via debates? Note that this is a really low bar, so probably any suggestion will be an improvement.
---
*Via some social media platform, and pre-cleared by the production staff, of course.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/33qGiFT
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire