Candidates’ Debates . . . 0

. . . have become pretty much a waste of time. They have become so stylized as to resemble nothing more than a minuet in a grade B movie about the prelude to the French Revolution, while, outside the doors of the palace, the ruffians riot freely.

Now, I’m not much of a Newt Gingrich fan, but he says something worthwhile here:

For 2008, we should honor the example of Lincoln and Douglas with a rich presidential dialogue that respects Americans in their role as citizens of a republic. We can start down this path with three changes to the presidential debates format.

First, the morass of rules and restrictions that have governed presidential debates should be eliminated. They are the product of campaign consultants determined to mask the weaknesses of their candidates. Campaign professionals prefer more controlled communication, such as campaign advertising, to exert the maximum possible influence on the voter rather than truly letting voters see the candidate in action. The result is a canned, formulaic charade in which the candidates are trained to use these rules as crutches to steer their responses to poll-tested phrases that appeal to certain core demographics.

He goes on to recommend

I find the first two recommendations extremely sensible. I’m not sure about the third, but it is certain worthy of, well, you know, debate.

At this point, the candidates’ debates are not debates–they are a series of mini-speeches (by the way, what was the bulge?). We would be better served if we could observe canditates actually taking to, with, and even against each other, rather than right past each other, as they do today.

And, frankly, I think the candidates would be better served by a chance to get out of their handlers’ straightjackets and into some straight talk.