< PREVIOUS ] [ 1992 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
The problem with presidential debates became apparent to me long ago and far away. In 1975 Nella Tucker, one of perhaps a dozen Democrats in Grand County, invited Gov. Dick Lamm to Kremmling. To everyone's surprise, he came.
Lamm didn't give a speech. Instead, he fielded two hours of questions from ranchers, lumberjacks, miners, sawyers, trappers, truck drivers, housewives, small-town entrepreneurs and similar endangered species.
The questions were clear and specific. Why couldn't there be an electronic sign at the U.S. 40 exit from Interstate 70, so that you could take Berthoud Pass when the Eisenhower Tunnel was closed to westbound traffic? Could Colorado ease the paperwork for game-damage claims? Could the state enforce its own laws on the Denver Water Board?
I had been to many press conferences whereat professional journalists grilled candidates and office-holders. The questions asked by the general public were far more perceptive and intelligent.
Why do journalists ask such lame, pedantic and arcane questions concerning matters that few, if any, voters care about? Some critics allege a Liberal Conspiracy. Others say it's the result of an Adversary Theory of Journalism. The scholarly journals doubtless offer other explanations.
But in fact the convolution and imbecility of most journalistic questions results from the secret fantasy held by everyone in the business. In this dream world, I will be on national television grilling presidential candidates, and I will phrase my question so cleverly that I will get an answer like this from Bill Clinton:
Well, yes, Mr. Quillen, my economic projections are a
shameful fraud. Such pandering is disgusting at best, but I
can't afford to alienate the American Association of
Retired Persons and the National Education
Association.
Or this answer from George Bush:
Boy, Ed, there's no way for me to weasel out of such
a clever and insightful question. Yes, I did pressure the
regulators to delay closing Silverado in 1988 in order to
protect my candidacy and my son, and yes, that delay cost
the taxpayers $250 million. You can call it a misuse of the
powers of office if you want to, and I am forced to agree
with that assessment, but I prefer to see it as a
demonstration of my commitment to family values.
To my knowledge, this has never happened. But that doesn't keep reporters from trying to phrase that clever question which will result in universal admiration for the reporter's knowledge and erudition.
That's why neither proposed format for presidential debates sounds informative. A media panel means that the questions will be phrased, not to inform the public, but to demonstrate the insight and wit of the inquisitor. A one-on-one bout, constrained only by a solo moderator, represents an improvement, but it also means that the candidates would go after each other's weak points -- of which we already know plenty.
The solution? Grab three or four people at random from the debate crowd -- make it a door prize, perhaps -- and let them sit on the stage and ask the questions. We'd need a moderator to keep the candidates on track, and an imperious federal judge, accustomed to making expensive lawyers toe the line, would fill that need admirably.
We'd find out what the candidates had to say about the things that most of us care about, and isn't that the purpose of the presidential debates?
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1992 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >