Vigorous debate is the cornerstone of a healthy democratic society. The presidential debate that will occur on Thursday, however, will be anything but vigorous due to the insistence of both presidential candidates. Concern for image-making (and selling) means that we, the people, will end up seeing less a candid exchange of views on policy and more a series of canned stump positions.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the debates to be held at the University of Miami is that the ground rules explicitly prohibit actual debating. The candidates are not allowed to ask each other questions, nor are they permitted to exact (or attempt to exact) pledges from the other. Interestingly enough, they are permitted to ask rhetorical questions. Perhaps one of them will ask "Why are we not actually debating, sir?"
At least the candidates are allowed to rebut each other, although they may not leave their podiums when they do rebut. Perhaps what is truly bothersome about this is that there is no mechanism in place to ensure that either man answers the question posed to him or rebuts his opponent in a relevant manner. Moderator Jim Lehrer must be diligent to ensure that both politicians use their time at the podium (and in the national spotlight) to answer his questions, rather than to give modified stump speeches.
The topic of the first debate is foreign policy and homeland security, which is shaping up to be the deciding issue of this election. It would seem that both men, after countless months of talking about Iraq, terrorism and the homeland, have plenty to say on these issues. One hopes that they will answer the tough questions involving America's vulnerability, both at home and overseas. A time when America is devoting a large amount of its military resources to major overseas operations is no time for resorting to cute rhetorical devices and political platitudes.
The most important point at issue in the debate, however, will not actually be debated, at least not in front of Jim Lehrer. This issue is, of course, who won the debate, and why they deserve to be called the victor. The posturing has already started on this issue, with both campaigns setting low expectations so that they might look like the upset winner (as was the case with Bush in 2000). Regardless of the content of the debate or the performance of their candidates, both parties will declare victory at the end of the night.
That's a shame. It's not a shame because it's impossible to have two winners. It's a shame because in America, supposedly the most powerful democracy in the world, the people only get to see three presidential pseudo-debates. They don't even get to see dynamic debating. Americans deserve better than this from their contenders for the White House, and for this reason, no matter who the true winners are on Thursday, voters will have lost.
