Moderator-In-Chief

The criticisms that the moderators in the presidential debates are not doing their jobs in an appropriate manner are absolutely correct; however the criticisms are also absolutely wrong. Now don’t be confused; this is not a logic problem, a final exam question on a philosophy final or some thorny conundrum intended to challenge your intellect. It is a critique of those who have the presumption to speak on behalf of the public’s interests. This is an assay on the quality and grade of those who are without any basis for representing the public and without any measureable insight into what would benefit the public. Their views are that the moderator is there to be uninvolved and merely ask the questions, monitor the equality of time between the candidates and provide some limited supervision that the candidates follow the rules. This may be what the candidates and the parties view as the role that they want for the moderator, but it isn’t what is good for the public. This limited, lame and lackluster perspective doesn’t even attempt to see the value, the potential and the opportunity that a moderator who served the public interests could provide.

What the public needs, what the public deserves and what the public should demand of “their” moderator is far more than these seekers who want to be the “servant of the people” will like or find comfortable. However, how comfortable do you think I care they are with the questions or the demands to which “my moderator” will hold them accountable?

The moderator should be prepared to not just ask the questions, but to assess and determine during the candidates response if they are even coming close to answering the question which more often than not they rarely do. In these circumstances the moderator should stop the candidates’s rambling and direct them to answering the question asked. If the answer is not forthcoming the moderator should terminate the candidate’s response period and move on the next item or candidate if they haven’t had a chance to not answer the question also.

If the moderator determines that the answer was non-substantive, they would be expected to follow-up with a restatement of the question along the lines of “Could you perhaps provide something of substance that would inform the public as you prior answer did not? A simple no would be adequate if you can’t.” The mode of moderating provides the means for the public to receive information related to what they are interested in relative to the questions, rather than what the candidates are interested in telling the public.

So rather than constraining and limiting the role of the moderator, their role should be strengthened and broadened to allow them to make the debates more focused on increasing the information that the public would benefit from obtaining. We have allowed the debates to become just another reality show, a scripted show and tell, and an exercise in evasion and confusion. You would think that candidates for the presidency would themselves demand a higher standard, an opportunity to lead, and a venue for enlightening their path to the future; but oddly the contenders for the ‘leader of the free world’ position are willing to follow their uninspired advisors, their handlers and consultants on how not to be a leader.

Such debates might be more difficult to get the candidates to agree to, but then the moderator has been given an excellent solution to that problem by Clint Eastwood.

Debasing the Debates: Lowering the Bar

A plethora of stories have permeated the media over the last week about how both Democratic and Republican parties, pundits, and partisans have been lowering the ‘expectations’ for their favorite son. This political tactic is based on the premise that if the candidate doesn’t do well that their side will be able to point to the proffered expectation that no one expected them to do well. A second factor contributing to this ‘claim the low ground’ mentality is that if will create the impression that the candidate rose to the challenge and outdid themselves in whipping their opponent.

Now I don’t object to the implication the parties are presenting, that they think the American public are complete idiots and that this positioning is inherently consistent with the very notion of someone being a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. In part this acceptance of both parties’ attitudes is to some degree confirmed by the fact that about an equal proportion of the voters are registered Republicans and as Democrats; thus prone to believe idiotic things. But is it really something that a candidate’s supporters should be proclaiming and championing this level of competency about their standard bearer?

Shouldn’t the standard be that the candidate is a competent, capable and a candid communicator who can present their views and plans to the public in a compelling and informative manner? Shouldn’t the expectation that the candidate is someone who provides the public with a reason to decide that the candidate’s positions are well thought out, demonstrate an insight and understanding of the nation’s issues and problems, and who would inspire the public to support the efforts and sacrifices that will be required to achieve the vision and goals set before the voters? If the candidate cannot do this then perhaps it’s not the case that the candidate is not a good debater, but rather that this candidate is not a viable candidate for the presidency.

I suppose the politicians that the country has today are a reflection of the parties’ lower values and standards, of their focus on ideology over substance and intelligence, and of their conversion to a monetary theology of campaign funders over a belief in American values. If you were to ask yourself, “Would I want a President only equal to the level of politicians that we have in Congress or the states that we have today?”, would your answer be yes?

So when I hear the ‘voices of the parties’ touting how enfeebled and inept their man’s going to be, I think I don’t want them to be president. I start off with my radar tuned into looking for confirmation that they are not viable contenders, for mistakes that add more bricks on the moron side of the balance, and to determine why they are so wrong for this job. If they do something that appears to be good, I assume I must have missed something in their answer that negates that interpretation. Yes, we remain in the land of ‘choosing the least of the worst’.

If you can’t raise the bar, then you are just letting your opponent appear to be in the contest rather than showing that they should have just remained a spectator who should have been watching someone else more qualified.