RALEIGH – The more debates, the better.
I think this rule applies to the presidential race, the gubernatorial race, and contests all the way down the ballot to soil and water conservation district (where, admittedly, the debates can get so rowdy and emotional that careful security provisions are necessary). North Carolina’s Republican electorate is being well-served by the large number of scheduled debates among GOP candidates for governor – by our count, there has been 10 public forums so far, with at least a dozen more scheduled through the May primary. On the Democratic side, by contrast, frontrunner Beverly Perdue has refused Richard Moore’s challenge to meet for a significant number of real debates. That’s not to her credit.
As a former high-school and college debater and judge, I suppose my position could be discounted as a personal preference. I like a good rhetorical fight. But the case for debates goes far beyond entertainment value. There are at least three reasons to believe that political contests with many candidate forums serve the Republic better than contests waged mostly in other ways.
First, well-designed candidate debates inject spontaneity into campaigns. Consultants dislike spontaneity, for understandable reasons, but their interests are not always consonant with those of the voting public. The ability to read from a script, stage a photo op, or hire a creative ad agency is unlikely to be the best indicator of a future governor’s effectiveness. What happens when a candidate gets a question he hasn’t thought much about? How does he respond under pressure, or when he is attacked for a past statement or decision? These are good questions to ask of any potential leader. Good debates create opportunities to get such questions answered.
Second, the spontaneity of public debate isn’t just revealing. It can also help make a race newsworthy. While online campaigning is burgeoning and broadcast advertising retains its ability to reach swing voters, news coverage is still critically important to the daily management of political campaigns, particularly to those below the presidential level and to candidates who can’t afford to buy enough media or hire enough people to reach large numbers of voters directly. But to complain that mainstream news organizations devote insufficient attention to state and local races is to ignore the fact that news organizations exist to draw an audience. They aren’t public utilities or arms of the state, nor should they be. Too many campaign events and releases contain no real news, so it’s no surprise that reporters and producers don’t jump at the chance to run with them.
Debates draw attention. With creative scheduling and hosting arrangements, even the Republicans’ extensive schedule of gubernatorial debates need not trudge into the marshy land of diminishing returns, because the debates can be spread across our sprawling state, focused on particular issues, and involve partnerships with different media (TV stations for some, talk-radio hosts or newspapers for others). More attention to state politics means more opportunities for voters to learn about their candidates.
Third, holding a series of candidate debates allows for discussion of key public issues in greater depth. What happens at one debate can guide the questions and answers at a subsequent one, making it harder for a candidate to glide by tough issues with smooth but insubstantial platitudes.
My fondness for debates is not exactly a distinguishing characteristic. Lots of people in North Carolina political and media circles like debates, too, and complain when candidates (such as, in this case, Perdue) decline to participate in a reasonable number of them. The problem comes in what to do about it.
Some favor a formal system of state muckety-mucks designing a schedule of debates and then using carrots and sticks to induce all candidates to participate. I’m not sure this somewhat-elitist plan will work. Candidates and their consultants are inevitably going to be picky about setting and subject, so flexibility is required to ensure that some public forums will actually come about. The key is to ensure that a single recalcitrant candidate intent on finding excuses to say no never gets the power to scuttle debates altogether. Although I used to think it was little more than a stunt, I’ve come around to the notion of holding a debate anyway and just leaving an empty chair with the missing candidate’s name prominently displayed.
The value of candidate debates is so great that, well, it’s not even debatable.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.