September 29, 1996

Political Debates Are Akin To Picking Wings Off Flies

If you enjoy picking wings off flies, then you will have a hootenanny Oct. 6 and 16 when Bill Clinton and Bob Dole square off for debate.

Reform Party candidate Ross Perot is suing the Commission on Presidential Debates and the Federal Election Commission to be included on "constitutional" grounds.

Perot has no legal right to participate. His argument was tested by other third-party candidates in 1988 and 1992 but dismissed by the courts.

The debate commission is a self-appointed group of former congressmen - five Democrats and five Republicans - funded by three private foundations and five corporate sponsors. The consortium took over from the League of Women voters when that organization incurred criticism for liberal bias.

The election commission is a government bureau funded by income tax check-off dollars. It gives campaign money to candidates based on past, party performance. Clinton and Dole have received $60 million each, Perot $30 million.

No one should be deceived by the debate commission's "bipartisan" objective. Bi, of course, means two; and partisan means one-sided support - in this case, political parties. Hence, Democrat-Republican; not tripartisan including the Reform Party; nor non-partisan for everyone.

The bipartisan advocates set about to advance the two- party political system that evolved in this country despite efforts by the constitution's authors to avoid "factions."

Regardless of its faults, the two-party winner-take-all system works well in a nation comprised of immigrants, or descendents of immigrants, from every ethnic and cultural group in the world.

A multi-party system attempting to represent every nuance of political advocacy - like those of European nations - would be bedlam in the United States.

Perot started his own political party. Let him start his own debate commission and invite Clinton and Dole.

If presidential debating has become a "right," then Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party must be invited. He also has qualified for all 50 state ballots.

Then we must consider the rights of the 200 Americans - eight in Florida - who filed as presidential candidates.

The notion of political debate stems from those between Abraham Lincoln and Sen. Stephen Douglas in the Fall of 1858. Douglas sought re-election. Lincoln tried to unseat him.

The paramount issue was slavery. Sen. Douglas had sponsored the bill repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibiting slavery north of the 36-degree parallel.

Lincoln, along with many others from both the Democratic and Whig parties, opposed extension of slavery. They formed a third party called Republican. Lincoln was chosen to oppose Democrat Douglas in Illinois.

After responding to Douglas speeches after the fact, Lincoln wrote him suggesting they speak together on the single issue of slavery. Douglas - who endorsed "popular sovereignty" - agreed reluctantly.

The two candidates thereafter met around the state on seven occasions. The appearances averaged three hours in length and were well attended by the general public.

Lincoln won the popular vote by a slight margin. However, a Democrat splinter candidate's vote, combined with the Douglas Democrat vote, prevailed in the state legislature which in those days elected U.S. senators.

Presidential debates resumed with the 1960 race between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. This was the first television confrontation. Nixon is widely believed to have lost because his "five o'clock shadow" beard was unflattering.

Then, and thereafter, the political debate format was devised for entertainment and the maximum attention span of viewers - two debates, hour and a half each, limited opening statements, limited response periods to questions asked or screened by "moderators," many topics touched briefly.

Debates now are a smorgasbord of traps. How do the candidates look? Will they mispronounce a word? Will they be nonplussed by an opponent's clever one-liner? Will they be caught in an error? Will they lose their cool? Did they go over their time allotments? Who got the most applause from the hand-picked audience of partisans?

As now constructed, political debates are less than helpful in making thoughtful decisions. Crucial issues are compressed into ten-minute presentations, five-minute rebuttals and two-minute question responses.

Debates now are just foot-races against the clock. Rhetoric has replaced reason. I warrant most people watch presidential debates as ancient Romans watched gladiators - to see who gets skewered.

We should adopt the Lincoln-Douglas format of frequent three-hour debates, or abolish debates as a quaint anomaly from the past. Today's debates have no practical function in 30-second sound-bite campaigns.

The government should stop trying to micromanage political campaigns with tax money, and well-intentioned do-gooders should butt out. Let candidates challenge each other, ask their own questions and take whatever time necessary to make their points.

It is claimed that 90 million people watched the Bush-Clinton debates in 1992, and 40 million declared they made up their minds as a result. If they did - or do - on such shallow presentations, then this nation is in deep yogurt.

PARTING SHOTS

• The trouble with being a leader these days is that you can't be sure whether people are following or chasing you.
  
• Six-year-old Jonathan Prevette, of Lexington, N.C., got into a peck of trouble this week when he complied with a schoolmate's request to kiss her on the cheek.
  
  His teacher reported him to the principal. The latter punished him for "unwelcome touching" by denying him attendance at an ice cream party.
  
  Jonathan is perplexed, but he learned a valuable lesson. When a lady asks to be kissed, it is more fun to please her in private. And you get ice cream too.
  
• Good advice from A. Lincoln: "When you ask of a stranger that which is of interest only to yourself, always include a stamp."

By Lindsey Williams, columnist for Sun Coast Media Group newspapers