Forget about Donald J. Trump and Joe Biden, for the moment. Reflect on the quasi-governmental function of the debates, for better and, distinctly, for worse, and the power assumed by the Commission for Presidential Debates in organizing them and appointing moderators, this year Chris Wallace, Steve Scully, and Kristin Welker. Margaret Sullivan in the Washington Post has a fine column chastising Wallace for omitting climate change and global warming from his list of six topics for the first debate on September 29; one of his topics is the Fox News (his employer) favorite, disorder in the cities. Wallace has an excellent reputation, but I note for the record, ageist that I am, that he is 73. Perhaps he's just not that into climate change as an existential threat, as compared with, say, lots of people 40 or 50 years younger than he. Sullivan noted that none of the worthies who moderated the debates in 2016 asked the candidates anything about the environment. Might that have even a smidgen of explanatory import as to why our dreadful Congress has been able to avoid any serious confrontation with that problem? (If the answer is no, then we might ask what function the "debates" serve.) I confess I remain angry at the late Jim Lehrer after all theses. years for his disgraceful performance as the moderator in the first debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry, where he couldn't be bothered to bring up the topic of torture. I suppose it just didn't interest the beltway enough.
Scully and Welker are also television journalists. As good as they presumptively are at their craft, I am confident that none of them begin to compare with the best of traditional investigative journalists, whether those working on what remains of daily newspapers or the alternatives that have grown up all over the place. The Commission, a privately-funded 501(c)(3) entity, is undoubtedly made up of concerned citizens, which I mean as a term of praise. But I really do wonder if they should necessarily be trusted with the role they now play in structuring our presidential selection process, especially this particular year. Perhaps Wallace, Scully, and Welker will do a truly fine job and expose my worries as just so much more election-year-in-a-pandemic-with-a-sociopathic-incumbent anxiety. But I must say that Sullivan's concerns hit home very hard.
I don't know what a "perfect" debate format would be in the digital age. I'm taken by the idea that moderators should be eliminated entirely, and that we should return to the format of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where we actually expected candidates to offer cogent arguments, at some length, with similar responses. I am teaching a course this term on Abraham Lincoln, and one of the astounding things is the sheer nature of his speeches, including the now-famous Lyceum speech he gave at the age of 29 in Springfield. And, of course, Lincoln's great speeches were self-written, not the product of professional speechwriters (who often crib from Lincoln). Of course no one can seriously believe that serious candidates any longer are capable of such speeches, perhaps with the exception of Barack Obama.
In any event, if one is interested in thinking about "constitutional reform," it might be worthwhile to spend a bit of time on the "subconstitutional" institutions that in fact structure our system, including the presidential debates that we now expect to take place, moderated by television stars. The future of the country may be literally at stake, and I know that I had no role at all in picking the "moderators" who will in fact be playing a vital role in determining our future.
LOVE to see shorter, one subject, Lincoln/Douglas-style debates. The campaigns could negotiate the topics. I would use a moderator for the sole purpose of enforcing time limits to avoid filibusters. This would take the partisan media out of the equation and force the candidates to demonstrate they could think on their feet.
ReplyDeleteI do not see how Biden can make it through the current 90 minute debates without the supporting teleprompters and ear pieces he uses during the current Potempkin press availabilities with cooperative Democrat "reporters." Even in these faux pressers, Old Joe melts down into dementia at least once a week. If he has a major meltdown or simply looks lost during these debates, his candidacy may be over.
The debates are largely worthless, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThey are mostly a recitation of pre-digested talking points and the occasional attempt at a gotcha. Some of the questions are OK, some are lame.
I doubt making them head-to-head encounters would change that, and they might just devolve into a shouting match.
I would prefer to see each candidate sit for lengthy policy-based interviews with serious journalists, who are prepared to ask followup questions, challenge false claims, and so on. It might be best to have only one or two interviewers, to establish continuity.
The trouble with this is that I doubt it would attract much of an audience because of the lack of a direct encounter between the candidates.
My ideal debate format would have the candidates spending the entire debate in sound proof, Faraday shielded lexan booths, with microphones and speakers. On the wall, visible to both, would be a clock. The microphones would turn off and on at clearly labeled intervals, without human intervention.
ReplyDeleteFor two hours they'd stand there, having alternating opportunities to speak, uninterrupted. It would be entirely up to them what to say. Make speeches, ask questions of each other, recite limericks. Whatever they wanted.
Nobody else on the stage, and any outlet wanting access to the live feed would have to promise to air it live, without any interruption, scrolling text, or anything of the sort.
Live, unedited, no inter-mediation. Just the candidates.
"Moderators" are just an opportunity for bias. Questions are just an opportunity for favoritism.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I didn't know about such moderation, done by TV stars as claimed here. However, Trump considers environmental issues, as complete nonsense. He does call it "Chinese hoax" by the way.
On the other hand, Biden, has very ambitious plan concerning green issues. Here titled:
"Joe Biden unveils $2 trillion green infrastructure and jobs plan"
Here:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/joe-biden-unveils-green-jobs-and-infrastructure-plan-during-2020-election.html
Anyway, it is globally so, that due to the Coronavirus, both items, are interfaced pretty often, in every debate. Some suggest that because of reaching too deep into nature, we got that Corona. Others claim, that for fighting such pandemic, we must keep safe the environment and biodiversity.
I shall leave more links later.....
Thanks
Here, titled:
ReplyDelete"Trump Has Called Climate Change a Chinese Hoax. Beijing Says It Is Anything But." Here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/world/asia/china-trump-climate-change.html
While quoting him(from his recent speech, in the Republican convention):
"Days after taking office, we shocked the Washington Establishment and withdrew from the last Administration's job-killing Trans Pacific Partnership. I then approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines, ended the unfair and costly Paris Climate Accord, and secured, for the first time, American Energy Independence."
Here:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/28/politics/donald-trump-speech-transcript/index.html
And here titled:
ReplyDelete"UN report highlights links between ‘unprecedented biodiversity loss’ and spread of disease"
Here:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/09/1072292
Trump: "Days after taking office, we shocked the Washington Establishment and withdrew from the last Administration's job-killing Trans Pacific Partnership. I then approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines, ended the unfair and costly Paris Climate Accord, and secured, for the first time, American Energy Independence."
ReplyDeleteYou do know that this was hardly a one-off statement. Trump is campaigning on energy independence and jobs across the swing states to cheering throngs. Energy independence meant hundreds of thousands of voter jobs which green mandates will kill. A job in hand beats any number of promised fantasy green jobs.
As for the efficacy of Biden's "$2 trillion green infrastructure and jobs plan," Trump can note the cost of that government takeover of the energy industry to the average voter in taxes, doubled or tripled gas prices, outlawed cars and trucks, and CA style rolling blackouts in a one minute debate answer. May even win him sone CA votes.
Debates always seemed a little off to me. It's no way to truly represent what a candidate believes and since moderators usually let the likes of Trump lie, they end up obfuscating more than they help. Yet we'll all watch and hope Biden doesn't screw up.
ReplyDeleteBart DePalma, so, this is you view or opinion, and it is legitimate. Yet, why then one-off? It is a clear and declared policy.
ReplyDeleteI hate the debates and refuse to watch them. The "moderators" are, like nearly all journalists (and Members of Congress), incapable of asking coherent questions or incisive follow-ups. They also are incapable of fact-checking in real time. Plus, the candidates tend to ramble on unresponsive to the question even when they're not trying to do a Gish Gallop; a mute button would be essential to any real debate.
ReplyDeleteel roam:
ReplyDeleteMy point is, contrary to Sandy's suggestion, green energy spending and mandates are not where Biden wants to go if he hopes to win swing state, working class votes from Trump. The Democrat Chris Wallace likely knows this, which is why he is not going there.
ReplyDeleteBart DePalma,
I am not so sure. You see, the issue is that infrastructures in US, need hell of renovation (even Trump recognizes this point). Then why not green ones? In accordance, it can increase GDP, and produce jobs. It does fit also, industrial policy long held by the US (generally speaking).
What is an issue indeed, is that the public, or certain class in the US, are not really acquainted with it.
But, objectively, it may work and produce good things.
I shall leave you links later....
Bart DePalma,
ReplyDeleteI quote from:
"2019 BUDGET FACT SHEET"
"Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure: An American Budget"
Here:
"America’s Infrastructure Deficit As President Donald J. Trump has consistently emphasized, we need to permanently fix the Nation’s infrastructure deficit to improve our quality of life and strengthen our economic competitiveness. America no longer has the best infrastructure in the world. For example, the World Economic Forum ranks the United States 10th internationally in quality of overall infrastructure. Our infrastructure problems are increasingly evident: America’s urban drivers spent an estimated 6.9 billion hours stuck in traffic in 2014, costing an estimated $160 billion in wasted time and fuel; there are an estimated 240,000 water main breaks every year in the United States; and nearly one in five domestic flights are delayed or canceled."
Here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/FY19-Budget-Fact-Sheet_Infrastructure-Initiative.pdf
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBD: My point is, contrary to Sandy's suggestion, green energy spending and mandates are not where Biden wants to go if he hopes to win swing state, working class votes from Trump.
ReplyDeleteel roam: I am not so sure. You see, the issue is that infrastructures in US, need hell of renovation (even Trump recognizes this point). Then why not green ones?
Spending trillions replacing efficient energy with more expensive, less reliable and insufficient green energy is, frankly, lunacy. If we actually went to zero emissions, solar and wind power (when it was available) could not operate our farms, mines and factories, which would stop production of the vehicles and machines which could run off solar and wind powered batteries, not to mention create a famine the likes modern man has never seen. No one has thought out what Green socialism would actually mean.
"Even in these faux pressers, Old Joe melts down into dementia at least once a week. "
ReplyDeleteHere we have every accusation is a confession at its apex.
ReplyDeleteBart DePalma,
You imagine it, as if zero/ one, in binary terms rather. But, it is not exactly so. Things can be implemented gradually. Can also be done in hybrid manner. Like electric car (hybrid) sometimes on battery, sometimes on fuel, depends on the performance needed.
Anyway, the world is in very nasty shape right now in this regard of climate change. What worries me, is that if the US, doesn't take lead, or stays out of all this, things shall get worse and reach dangerous peak.
Industrial policy is good thing. Increasing industrial output good thing. One should not neglect totally the green side. Making things better and better (gradually) has important value. There is no need to dismiss it, and that's it. One can consider, reconsider, integrate it gradually and so forth....
Above all, let's hope, that nuclear fusion, would solve problems, in the utmost efficient and clean manner. Here for example, by "Lockheed Martin":
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/compact-fusion.html
I largely agree with Mark. Our media is generally based on norms that don't know how to deal with one side or party that, as I noted the other day, has chucked all pretense of moral, intellectual and honorableness consistency in order to nakedly pursue substantive goals. They aren't good at real time fact checking, but even if they did what would happen is that Trump and his ilk would just do as they usually do: repeat their whoppers over and over (Palin presaged this, don't retreat, reload), and then they'd complain and cry if the moderators criticized them more even if they were factually incorrect more. All they can think to do is 'did I give both sides the same amount of time and an equal amount of critiques as to what they said' regardless of what either side said.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI do not see how Biden can make it through the current 90 minute debates without the supporting teleprompters and ear pieces he uses during the current Potempkin press availabilities with cooperative Democrat "reporters." Even in these faux pressers, Old Joe melts down into dementia at least once a week. If he has a major meltdown or simply looks lost during these debates, his candidacy may be over.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 1:42 PM
lol
At least Biden can read a teleprompter. Trump is so senile that he can’t even manage to do that without sounding like a raving lunatic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBD: Spending trillions replacing efficient energy with more expensive, less reliable and insufficient green energy is, frankly, lunacy. If we actually went to zero emissions, solar and wind power (when it was available) could not operate our farms, mines and factories, which would stop production of the vehicles and machines which could run off solar and wind powered batteries, not to mention create a famine the likes modern man has never seen. No one has thought out what Green socialism would actually mean.
ReplyDeleteel roam: You imagine it, as if zero/ one, in binary terms rather. But, it is not exactly so. Things can be implemented gradually.
Sorry, too late for that. We should have listened to Al Gore back in the 1990s. Now, the best and brightest bureaucrats over at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and visionary Democrat leaders like AOC assure us the atmosphere will become a runaway hothouse and the world will burn like CA unless the world halves emissions by 2030 and zeroes them out by 2050. Of course, China, India and the third world are excused from these cuts, so the US and EU will have to zero out their emissions in a decade to allow the world to stay on schedule.
Lunacy.
Bart DePalma,
ReplyDeleteYes, it is bit too late. But, things can be done here. According to too many estimations, if we act now, and aggressively, we can stop that race to an awful end. Even one degree, is crucial in global terms.
China and India and alike countries, claim that the US, has done the best for itself, and polluted heavily the environment. Now, as developing countries, they need also to "accomplish the dish" as the US in did the past for itself. It is unfair from their point of view. But, they assume responsibility, and ready to fight that climate change.
The best thing for Trump and the US, would be simply, to assert and do the following:
Rely as mentioned on nuclear fusion (Lockheed Martin) and do it in the old american fashion or way. Total efficiency. Zero pollution. One step ahead over the whole world. The US has always been pioneer. Reaching the moon. Atomic bomb and energy etc.... Biggest, and most efficient. Now, if that nuclear fusion is ready soon for generating electricity ( and in UK for example, withing several years, it would start to produce and supply electricity) the whole issue of green energy as we know it(like solar energy) would become absolutely obsolete.
It is up to the president and both houses to lead the world to such safe and far greater future.
I shall leave some links later.....
Thanks
Here:
ReplyDelete"Nuclear Fusion Could Be A Reality By 2025"
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Fusion-Could-Be-A-Reality-By-2025.html
I don't really watch debates though it's interesting to watch some reactions online.
ReplyDeletePrimary debates can provide some rough idea of the characters. Rough is the word, but it probably has some limited value there. I can't tell if they are never useful. It is not like I watch all the debates there, including of local races where the two (or more) sides are at times relatively both valid characters.
Here, it's just a waste. What will we have? Biden will slip-up somehow and we will hear talk of "bad debate" while Trump will have such a low level of expectation that any degree of being able to somewhat keep on track will be praised as success. I think moderators, at times, manage to hold candidates to show degree of honesty, but yes, it's hard, including given the nature of debates.
As to the best debate approach, I don't think relying on what two debate savvy types like Douglas/Lincoln did in another era tells us much. The best is to have the staff to keep nominees mostly honest in real time. I think some sort of head to head appearance is useful, even if it is not a debate as such.
ReplyDeleteBart DePalma,
To illustrate what I mean by, not totally too late, and not treat it as zero/ one, I quote:
"But it may not be too late to avoid or limit some of the worst effects of climate change. Responding to climate change will involve a two-tier approach: 1) “mitigation” – reducing the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and 2) “adaptation” – learning to live with, and adapt to, the climate change that has already been set in motion."
Here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/
But again, all this would look as amazingly obsolete, if nuclear fusion would take over. America can do it. Big time. Save the world so. Just to concentrate money and best minds, and push the whole world further.
Thanks
Do Bart and his "cheering throngs" have any idea what has actually been happening to the US coal and fracked gas industries under Trump?
ReplyDeletePS: From here:
ReplyDelete"Overall, clean energy jobs totaled more than 3.26 million at the end of 2018 [...] Clean jobs outnumber fossil fuels jobs nearly three to one (3.26M to 1.17M).."
Recall Trump's offer to newly unemployed coal miners: a Corleone nothing. They should have swallowed their resentment and taking Hillary Clinton's deal. Perhaps they will take it this time from the more acceptable Joe.
Is it too much to ask Bart, who claims to be a lawyer, to read the Paris Agreement before spouting lies about it? "Of course, China, India and the third world are excused from these cuts..." the main objective of Obama's negotiators, in which they succeeded, was too end the Kyoto exemptions for poorer countries and bring everybody in under common obligations. The price of this was no top-down country targets at all, but a system of *voluntary* obligations ratcheted up by science, economics, public opinion and peer pressure. Remarkably, it's working.
Conservatives don't see how "ama et fac quod vis" can possibly work, but in some contexts it does. The enforcement mechanism for Paris includes Greta.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames: Do Bart and his "cheering throngs" have any idea what has actually been happening to the US coal and fracked gas industries under Trump?
ReplyDeleteCheap fracked oil and gas displaced coal and drove down energy prices. Government COVID panic mongering and shutdowns forced energy like the rest of the economy in recession.
"Overall, clean energy jobs totaled more than 3.26 million at the end of 2018 [...] Clean jobs outnumber fossil fuels jobs nearly three to one (3.26M to 1.17M).."
Nearly all of these claimed "clean energy jobs" are reclassifications of existing jobs (like installing insulation) and/or government borrow and subsidize make work diverting investment capital from productive work. Almost none of this would exist without government mandates to build and use this energy, partially paid for by rising energy costs. Think toll roads to nowhere.
Is it too much to ask Bart, who claims to be a lawyer, to read the Paris Agreement before spouting lies about it?
The Paris Agreement itself was aspirational and unenforceable green socialism (see the EU), but the Obama bureaucracy used it as a pretext to illegally impose a tidal wave of regulation without an act of Congress. Trump's arguably greatest accomplishment was to stop this. The greatest threat posed by the Democratic socialists using Old Joe as a figurehead is to restart the tidal wave.
When discussing green energy initiatives with a person like Bart, it's best to keep in mind that, so far as I have seen, Bart does not believe that the climate change we see is due to fossil fuel consumption. In fact, until climate change became so obvious that it was incontestable, Bart refused to admit that it was occurring at all.
ReplyDeleteThis is a person who has said just the other day that the true cost of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US is about 10,000 deaths. (How does he explain the hundreds of thousands of deaths above the expected number for the last several months? He's posited suicides and other results of stress brought on by despair due to Democrat governors actions...)
This is a person who can see "socialists" running the Democratic party, yet is incapable of seeing AGW and pandemic results. How does one discuss the forest fire, when a person cannot see anything but a few trees?
As for the "debates" -- pointless to tune in to them. No matter what the question, the "answer" will be a spew of talking points (or, in the case of Trump, a barrage of lies and incoherent BS.)
ReplyDeleteWe've already voted here, anyway. From talking to my neighbors, the voting is going to be about half over by the end of the month.
Well, of course, Bircher Bart, country lawyer, knows more about climatology than professional climatologists with more experience, training and education in the subject; he knows more about polling than professional pollsters with more experience, training and education in the subject; he knows more about epidemiology than professional epidemiologists with more experience, training and education in the subject, etc., etc., etc. (one of the funniest own goals I've seen from Bircher Bart was when he used his amateur knowledge of the field of logic to try to defend these absurd positions, betraying his lack of deep knowledge of the field of logic, making the very mistake he was arguing he doesn't regularly make).
ReplyDeleteAs I've said before conservatives are essentially a reprisal of the Age of Jackson. They hate expertise and arrogantly think the 'common man' has enough wisdom to easily understand and confidently opine and make policy on even the most complicated areas. This is why they hate the 'progressive' movement, it's not so much the recent 'liberal' turn of progressivism, instead it's that they disdain the very idea that there are non-partisan approaches and norms, such as professional standards, scientific expertise, etc., that might stand in the immediate and easy realization of their current partisan goals.
Consider that modern conservatives talk about 'draining the swamp' via a man who by his own admission played the real estate 'game' in New Jersey (and primarily in Atlantic City for pete's sake!) most of his career, who has brought on his children in key positions, refused to make his tax and financial records available, has not placed his business interests in a blind trust, etc. These are the most basic 'conflict of interest' red flags that in any other setting would raise alarms. But, mind you, these are people who have little value and indeed disdain for the idea of professional norms and best practices. All that matters to them are highly ideological goalposts, and their goalposts are extreme, driven by paranoid. It's difficult for most professionals to tell them what makes them happy in that area with a straight face for long, so they turn readily to anyone prominent figure who does and entertain little scrutiny of such figures in other areas. This is why they are so prone to being duped (see Bannon's wall project, the NRA, etc., just as recent examples). These are purely ends driven people.
ReplyDeleteWith this sort of draining of a swamp, beware of malaria.
ReplyDeleteInteresting concept, the "subconstitutional" institutions.
Think about Trump's rise to the throne in the GOP. How did a man with no elected or military experience rise to be a virtually unchallengable figure in one of our two nationwide major parties? It's historically unprecedented.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is: he was the person who was finally willing to play to the base with a straight face. No more dog whistles and hints dropped to satisfy the Bircher base which was the old norm, now there was a person who was willing to go full throttle into the paranoid delusions of the GOP base, a base primed by years of Limbaugh and Beck, becoming more and more paranoid and conspiratorial in their thinking. He embraced Birtherism when most establishment GOPers (rightfully) wouldn't touch such nonsense. He engaged in open Muslim bashing, something the establishment GOPers (rightfully) recognized was not to be done since the demise of open anti-Catholicism, even today he plays regularly in the sandbox of the paranoid, conspiratorial base (hydroxychloroquine, Covid denial, climate denial, Qanon, etc).
To follow such a person you're inevitably going to have to denigrate the professional classes, because the professional classes, due to long established norms, institutions and professional standards, are simply going to have a hard time validating such nonsense. Doctors and scientists are going to feel pressured to say 'hydroxychloroquine' is not tested and likely harmful, climatologists are going feel pressured to say 'we have all this evidence from all these fields to the contrary,' not to mention how difficult it is going to be for professionals in many fields to take seriously the idea that a Satanist pedophile cabal is operating out of DC pizza joints or that somehow scientists all over the world are conspiring to foist false narratives about Covid or climate or what have you just to make Donald Trump look bad).
I'm not sure that anything with political resonance is 'subconstitutional' but rather is 'constitutional,' or at least potentially constitutional, because, as we see, the constitutional is the political and the political is the constitutional. As we saw the atextual 'broccoli mandate' come from the political realm to be recognized by SCOTUS a few years later upending a clear trend of SCOTUS decisions in the area, we're seeing Republican judges in some states and federal courts backing the a-textual, a-historical nonsense arguments first put forward politically against covid restrictions. As long as SCOTUS justices are nominated and confirmed by politicians there is nothing constitutional that is not political and, to a large degree, vice versa.
ReplyDeleteI once had a religious studies teacher that taught me that religion was often a project of trying to put a supernatural stamp of approval on what one already thought was right, proper and just. Text provides little restraint (this is why you can get religious based crusades against abortion but not eating shrimp, the latter which likely has more explicit Scriptural grounding). I submit much the same could be said about the Constitution.
this is why you can get religious based crusades against abortion but not eating shrimp, the latter which likely has more explicit Scriptural grounding)
ReplyDeletePart of this is that the crusaders are unlikely to want an abortion (or else are able to get one secretly) but probably like to eat shrimp, bacon, and so on. To do the latter you have to buy it in a store or restaurant and are likely to be seen.
Old Jewish guy at deli counter, pointing to his selection: "Half a pound of the pastrami, please."
Counterman "Excuse me sir, but that's ham."
Old Jewish guy: "When I want your opinion I'll ask for it."
"the idea that a Satanist pedophile cabal is operating out of DC pizza joints"
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, the McMartin pre-school has been closed for 35 years or so. Where else could they go?
I've thought about the value of debates recently because of this thread/post.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, I get the idea that debates are (or should be, as an empirical political matter they often certainly are) pointless. If you're Bircher Brett and you think it is critically important to expand gun rights and deport illegal immigrants and such, then would you change your vote from a candidate devoted to following those values to one who did not because they could not answer a question smartly or even sensibly?
On the other hand, I can think of some things that could come from a debate that might be weighty. If someone says something that displays a general characteristic, such as an unwillingness to change one's mind, a lack of intellectual curiousity, a lack of basic empathy, or acting/saying something buffoonish, I think that could be weighty, because, arguably, a President is not just someone to implement ideological goals, but also needs to have characterstics that allow them to deal well with non-ideological things (representing the country well, being able to adapt to emergencies, etc.,).
Debates are a TV show.
ReplyDeleteI think it's really important to understand that the media is a big player in elections, and NOT in the sense that people think. I.e., it isn't about the issues of bias, which are hoary and warmed-over.
Rather, the media is a player in the sense that they want ratings. We have the debates that the media wants to air. This will not change. If the government tried to force the media to run the sorts of debates that good government types would like but which might not make as good television, the media would fight back and likely win.
This is true of a lot of things. For instance, there's a whole bunch of legitimate discussion as to what is going to happen on Election Day when we don't have a clear winner. But the only reason we have a baseline expectation of having a clear winner on Election Day is because the media has insisted on it with exit polling and fast counts, because that is better for their television show.
To actually come up with "subconstitutional" procedures that might be better for good government concerns, you'd probably need to repeal the First Amendment or at least break up Big Media.
One may read in "Jurist" and links therein, titled:
ReplyDelete"Vermont passes Global Warming Solutions Act, overriding governor’s veto"
Here:
https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/09/vermont-passes-global-solutions-act-overriding-governors-veto/