[Dean's World] Dean: "Inclusive" Debates

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dean:
"Inclusive" Debates
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1149320981.shtml


   Cranky Insomniac says some nice things about me, then [1]adds more
   thoughts on third parties and how to help them, including endorsing
   and urging others to join [2]American Bloggers for Inclusive Debates,
   which is basically an effort to include third parties in the
   Presidential and other debates.

   While I'm all for inclusive debates with intelligent people who want
   to actually discuss things rather than spout talking points or just
   bash politicians or parties they don't like, I have to point out
   something: you're very unlikely to get most political debates to
   include third parties like the Libertarians, the Greens, the
   Constitution Party, the Natural Law Party, and so on.

   I have tried pointing this out to people many times in the past who
   say "so-and-so should be allowed into the debate," and when I explain
   it to them it's like talking to a brick wall. There is one fact, one
   crystal-perfect, absolute fact at the center of all campaign debates
   that you absolutely must understand to have any hope of having any
   possibility of an influence:

   Political debates between candidates are private and voluntary
   affairs.

   Let me say that again, and make it clear:

   Political debates. Between candidates for office. Are. A. PRIVATE. AND
   VOLUNTARY. AFFAIR.

   Please understand this point: let's say that in 2008 the Republican
   nominee is Rudy Giuliani, and the Democratic nominee is Hillary
   Clinton, and the Green candidate is Ralph Nader and the Libertarian is
   Marvin the Martian (isn't he always their candidate?).

   Now. Someone says "let's have a debate. We'll invite all the
   candidates."

   Now, imagine that Hillary says, "I'm not setting foot on that stage if
   that idiot Nader is anywhere near it."

   Go on, just pause and think it through. What would the result of that
   be?

   If you're thinking, "boy she'll look bad," you aren't thinking very
   clearly. At all. Because under those circumstances, Rudy Giuliani,
   unless he's a complete moron, won't show up either. Because he'd look
   desperate, like he needed attention. And worse, he'd be up there
   having to argue with opinions with people who are obviously well out
   of the mainstream, and only there because they hope to get far more
   attention than they could otherwise get by sharing the stage with a
   major candidate.

   In short, a demand for "inclusive debates" is a demand for Affirmative
   Action for candidates that everyone knows has no chance of winning at
   all.

   Oh, and don't think I'm picking on Hillary in my example. It plays the
   same way if Rudy says, "I'm not getting up there and debating with
   that fool Marvin. He might zap me with his ray gun." And, being a
   Libertarian, Marvin's probably got one, or wishes he does anyway. So
   Hillary's going to go up there and slug it out with Nader and the
   other Martian?

   No, she won't. To 5% of the audience she'll look very statesmanlike
   and thoughtful. To the other 95% she'll look like an idiot, trying to
   explain why she doesn't want to privatize Yellowstone, abolish all
   taxes, outlaw the internal combustion engine and shoot whalers on
   sight.

   There is no formal government role in debates. Oh, there's a federal
   comission on Presidential debates that provides some tax funding, and
   they actuall have some rules that would allow third parties in. They
   just have to meet a reasonably low bar, to be able to show that they
   can muster a certain low percentage in the polls, around 15% or so as
   last I recall. Almost no third party candidate can do this--Perot was
   the last one, and he went down in utter flames.

   Once again, please, remember this salient fact:

   Political debates. Are. VOLUNTARY. For the candidates. Voluntary. If
   they don't want to show up, they won't. There's no rule that says they
   have to at all.

   In fact, I have a better proposal:

   Let's leave the debating to people who talk around the dinner table,
   around the office water cooler, and on blogs, and let's have the major
   Presidential candidates take a different pledge:

   How about skipping these phony, scripted Presidential debates
   entirely? Just don't have them. The candidates can make their
   speeches, issue their platforms and proposals, put them out on the
   internet, and let their spokesmen argue it out on the political talk
   shows. What more debates do you need? Indeed, what kind of moron do
   you have to be to have to listen to two candidates "debate" each toher
   directly? What, you can't look at the speeches and the literature from
   each of them and make up your own mind? You need to be spoon-fed?

   I say screw it: Presidential debates are dumb. I'll applaud the next
   major Presidential candidate who refuses to have one. Whoever has the
   guts to do that may just get my vote on general principles.

References

   1. http://crankyinsomniac.blogspot.com/2006/06/third-party-people-in-house-say-yeah.html
   2. http://inclusivedebates.blogspot.com/