Clintons' "Lincoln-Douglas" Debates Not So "Lincoln-Douglas"-Like
by Jonathan Singer, Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:43:56 PM EDT
Just in via email from the Clinton campaign is an intriguing proposal for "Lincoln-Douglas Style Debates". At least the proposal was intriguing -- until I read the details of it.
During the run up to the 1858 elections, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas held a series of debates across the state of Illinois to help influence the legislative races in the state in the hopes of their party gaining control over the legislature, thus ensuring they would be elected to the United States Senate (because until the early 20th century Senators were chosen by state legislatures rather than directly by the voters). These debates played out as follows: One candidate spoke for an hour, the other candidate spoke for an hour and a half, and the first candidate was allowed a half-hour long rejoinder. In total, there were seven such debates across Illinois allowing both candidates an opportunity to fulfill each role. Transcripts of each candidate's long and thorough orations were made widely available, and in full, in newspapers (indeed not just in Illinois but around the country as well). And importantly, each candidate was allowed to lay out his case -- and his response to his opponent's case -- in a clear and unrestrained way.
With this in mind, I read the email sent out to reporters today by Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams with interest -- a series of debates along the lines of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Yes, there have already been more than 20 debates, and many voters simply feel debated out. But a very different type of debate could be refreshing, one in which the candidates were not forced to impart only 30-second, or 90-second, or even few-minute long sets of talking points; one in which the candidates were allowed to make their case to the voters point-by-point and respond to their fellow candidate point-by-point.
Was this what the Clinton campaign was proposing, though? No.
One candidate would speak for two minutes, then the other, alternating back and forth all the way through the debate.
True, the debate would be more like the Lincoln-Douglas debates in that they would not feature a debate moderator or some modern debate techniques (like the use of videotaped responses). What's more, it would be up to the candidates to pick the topics rather than the establishment media figure moderating the debate.
However, these "Lincoln-Douglas Style Debates", as the Clinton campaign calls them, would not diverge so much from the modern trend of sound-bite driven campaigning or hew closely to the true nature of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. No, instead of allowing each candidate to speak in a measured, thoughtful and clear manner, laying out his or her case and responding to the other candidate's case, the debates proposed by the Clinton campaign would just be more in a series of made-for-television, "Crossfire"-like quasi-debates that show less about the quality of a candidate's thoughts and beliefs than they do about the candidate's ability to come up with a biting sound-bite or a funny joke.
Yes, it is important for the President to be able to think on his or her toes (though do note that the best debate lines -- "You're no Jack Kennedy", "Where's the Beef?", "I won't take advantage of my opponent's age" -- were concocted long before the debate ever took place). But isn't the presidency more than a rap session governed by which side is better able to cut the other side? Or at least shouldn't it be?
If the Clinton campaign would be willing to hold serious extended debates that truly reflect the nature of the Lincoln-Douglas debates -- they need not be three hours long; if one candidate spoke for 15 minutes, the other spoke for 45 minutes, then the first spoke again for a half hour that would approximate those historic debates while coming in closer in time to the length of today's debates -- that would be one thing (and other breakdowns would work as well). But as long as the Clinton campaign is merely calling for more opportunities for gotcha-style politics in 90-second or 2-minute bursts, I see little reason for the Obama campaign to say yes (and indeed the Obama campaign is saying no to another debate in the next 10 days before North Carolina and Indiana vote).
Tags: debates, Hillary Clinton (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
97 Comments