The "Debates"

The other night, we the people blundered into the age of the YouTube debate. I didn't watch. Why not? First of all because I was busy; but also because the entire concept disappointed me. Oh and I didn't care.

But let's return to the second (and perhaps most substantive) reason: the concept disappoints me. Really perhaps I'm wrong in saying this; perhaps it's a relief. Because instead of inane questions asked by "pundits" such as Chris Matthews ("Raise your hand..."), we get questions asked by snowmen (or this being a Democratic debate, snowpeople). This "debate" just serves to prove how hollow the entire "debate" concept has become - worthless questions asked by people sorely lacking in intellect or the necessary gravitas (which is why the GOP's Fox News debate was one of the only substantive ones to date) or questions asked by equally clueless average-joe voters. Instead, let's put candidates to a real test - throw them in front of Thomas Sowell or Dennis Miller (or their Democratic equivalents) and force them to answer questions of depth and substance. It may turn off voters, but that's a risk we should be willing to take. In fact, who is to say that if the level of debate is raised, voters won't follow along? Soundbytes and shallow debates are what's wrong with politics, and also I think what turns many people off of politics. If instead there was some honest, meaningful discussion of depth, voters might respond and the whole country would be better off. Though if we try to do so (such as the Democrats Iraq-only forum at SAIS), the candidates may flee rather than be exposed (at that forum, only Biden and other equally low-tier candidates showed up).

A YouTube debate has also been announced for the Republican field, but thankfully they may not be playing along. Giuliani's campaign has suggested that he's got a scheduling conflict September 17th, and Romney's unhappy with the format. If they choose not to show up, it could quickly become a debate filled with meaningless questions answered by meaningless candidates - sort of like the Ames Straw Poll for the digital age. Though I imagine Ron Paul would have fun with it.

But why the difference in reaction? In part, I think it's that Democrats are desperate to appear "hip" and win the mythical youth vote (though the "vote or die" campaign of 2004 was dead on arrival); Republicans frankly don't give a damn.

And while we're on the topic, if debates are entirely pointless (they are), can we at least make them truly entertaining? Have Colbert and Stewart co-host. That I would watch.