The Campaign We Deserve

An interesting proposal from a writer at the American Enterprise Institute...

Apparently, in 1963, JFK and Barry Goldwater (the eventual Republican nominee in 1964) were close to agreeing on a 64 Presidential campaign that would have had the two traveling on the same plane, touring the country in a vast series of toe-to-toe debates and town hall Q&A meetings (The idea was scuttled after Kennedy's assassination).

It is almost impossible to imagine such an event today in a campaign culture that is nothing if not risk averse and a political culture that has seemingly forgotten the concept of respectful disagreement.

Nevertheless, it may be exactly what we need.

Such a format would require real plans and positions, a basic grasp of all major issues and above all else, it would demand candidates of true talent. Incidentally, it would also diminish the value of money in campaigns - making ideas relatively more important.

Clinton, McCain, Giuliani, Biden, Richardson, Romney and Edwards are experienced politicians with serious ideas. Obama doesn't quite fit the "experienced" categorization, but its hard to deny he would be intriguing to watch in such a process. Given these candidates, I think we have the talent in this election to see such a format... I'm not so sure if we have the courage though.

Some may say that this would not be the best way to pick a candidate. It might over-prioritize physical charisma and pure wit, as opposed to actual intelligence. These may be valid criticisms.

These factors are doubtlessly very important when debates are few and far between, but I wonder how important they would be over time and over a series of debates? I believe that substance would become more important - at least more than it is today in campaigns that are dominated by intensely scripted photo-ops and highly polished (and poll tested) rhetoric.

In any case, it would put genuine policy ideas on the table, force candidates to state and rationalize their beliefs and it would give the public something more to base their decision on than name recognition, television commercials, fundraising numbers, polls and media soundbites.

It is ironic and even tragic that campaigns have come to this. Almost nothing about a candidate's leadership ability is revealed in a commercial or a stump speech. Character is revealed when an unexpected question is asked or a strong counter-argument to the stump speech is put forward. But we never get to see that...

Even in debates today, the goal is not to present a more compelling vision or superior logic. The minimum goal is to not look bad. The holy grail is to deliver the zinging one-liner that makes the crowd laugh at your opponent's expense - one that the lazy media can embrace and play...over and over again (e.g. Reagan vs Mondale , Bentson vs Quayle).

With the problems we are facing today, we need solutions, not slogans. I believe that this format would be a step in that direction. A candidate would have to rely on a core of real substance to do well in a series of real debates - and certainly in town hall meetings.

I imagine that some of you reading think that this is an impossible wish - so why even discuss it?

I guess because I don't agree that it IS impossible this time. It is not hard at all for me to envision McCain or even Guiliani agreeing to such a format. They are both men that are comfortable with their beliefs. If they find themselves running against Hillary - a candidate that many actually dislike - they may conclude that the best tactic is to stand side by side with her as often as possible.

Similarly, if Obama and Edwards truly believe (in their own minds) that they are experienced enough to be President, then they should be the first ones to advocate multiple debates. They are the two most attractive, charismatic and articulate candidates. If they are comfortable with their leadership ability, then they should embrace such a format as it suits their natural gifts. (If they didn't, it would reveal a lack of essential personal confidence).

Clinton is the one I am the least sure about. In my opinion, I think she would do quite well in such a scheme. She is articulate, deeply experienced and is as intelligent (if not more so) than any of the other candidates. But I doubt her campaign advisers' willingness to take such a risk. I admit that I have little to base this on - I just have a general perception of her campaign being very conservative thus far given her front runner status. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

In any event, I pray that Americans demand a true demonstration of character in this election - in any manner that they can get it...