| A debate about debates is breaking out among Democrats, and it's making me cranky.
The question is whether the party should hold a nomination debate focused solely on climate change, as Washington Governor Jay Inslee and others have argued. That's produced some push-back. Jonathan Chait, for example, is concerned about a slippery slope: If one group of advocates gets a debate dedicated to their preferred issue, then won't the party have to accommodate every other interest group? Ezra Klein has one answer: "There should be a climate debate. And a healthcare debate. And a wages debate. And a racial justice debate. And so on." Vox's Libby Nelson suggests they "do 6 single-issue debates and devote the 7th to arguing over which issue should have been included."
To all this I have one response: Why?
Just cut it out. Debates are an inferior form of discussion and communication. Yes, they're an efficient way to introduce the candidates to voters and they aren't actively damaging for the most part. But please, let's not pretend that they're anything more than stylized food fights. A debate restricted to a single topic wouldn't be any less of a zoo: We'd still have the same zingers, interruptions, off-topic responses, canned attacks and all the rest of it. Nor would it change anyone's mind. We know that even high-profile presidential speeches can barely sway public opinion; nomination debates won't do any better. Meanwhile, chugging along just fine, we already have lots of single-topic forums. Candidates at such events usually take turns, with only one on stage at a time. Sometimes they give a speech; sometimes an interviewer or a panel questions them; sometimes they take questions from an audience of activists or experts. They're often excellent events!
The bottom line is that the debates aren't broken. A lot of people (and I'm tempted to question what their extracurriculars were in high school) just have the mistaken belief that competitive debating is a good way to choose party nominees, or for that matter presidents. It isn't. Debating doesn't call on any of the political skills that presidents actually need. And a good way to push candidates for in-depth comments on particular policies already exists in single-issue forums. Problem solved!
1. Sam Luks and Brian Schaffner at the Monkey Cage on sexism and the nomination contest.
2. Also at the Monkey Cage, John O'Loughlin and Cullen Hendrix on climate and international conflict.
3. Jamelle Bouie on Tom Steyer's presidential campaign.
4. Quinta Jurecic on how House Democrats should think about Robert Mueller's testimony.
5. Matt Stevens on what the candidates are doing for state legislative contenders. Very interesting.
6. Greg Sargent on the Democratic initiative on immigration.
7. And Amber Roessner on Jimmy Carter nostalgia. A good item, but still too generous to Carter, whose failures and flaws aren't so different from Donald Trump's, although certainly less extreme.
Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. |
Post a Comment