It is almost mandatory for candidates for public office to debate their opponents in some public forum, whether on a TV or radio program or live in some public meeting space.
But do these debate really prove anything? The candidates appear without notes or aides and answer impromptu questions from a moderator or members of the audience. They are judged on how well they respond and on their grasp of the issue of the question. But if elected, do they govern that way?
No! Sure, there are debates in legislative sessions, but those often do not sway anybody but the folks back home. The legislators have generally worked out what is in a bill and are merely expressing their support or opposition to it.
The real work is done in offices with plenty of aides and other research sources. The legislators draft a bill and pass it around to colleagues who have an interest in it. A legislator may have a bias one way or another about the issue, but he or she has to construct it in a way to maximize support for it. This cannot be done in the two-to-five minutes allowed in a debate.
Debates also give an advantage to the glib who can come up with a plausible answer within a few seconds. They put at a disadvantage to the thoughtful who try to consider many aspects of a problem. We need fewer politicians like the former and more like the latter.
A much better way would be to have a public discussion on an issue, each candidate having access to research assistants to provide additional information.
Thoughtful consideration was essentially the idea of the original Roman Senate and of the original federal legislature of the United States as expressed in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the government of both Rome and the United States degenerated into bread and circuses. In the case of the latter, it is entitlements, earmarks, pork as bread and flashy ads and phony debates as the circuses.
