Better Debates

One of Jonah Goldberg's readers chimes in with a suggestion:

Dear Jonah,
One reader asked last night, "can we ever, please, PLEASE get just ONE debate moderated by actual CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS???" This reader asks: Why doesn't NRO host a debate? That would be a sight to behold.

That sounds like a good idea to me. Especially given the enormous quantity of debates that both fields are enduring this cycle, why can't we have more experimentation with the formats? In particular, it really does seem likely to me that a panel of smart conservative ideologues would produce a debate that's more useful to Republican primary voters than would Tim Russert or Wolf Blitzer being a pain in the ass. And, of course, vice versa as well. Katrina vanden Heuvel and Harold Meyerson know the questions actual Democrats would like to see the Democratic candidates answer. If that experiment worked well, you might even consider mixing things up -- let Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru grill the Democrats and see what happens. Certainly it's not as if the CNN and MSNBC teams have covered themselves in so much glory this cycle that I'm sitting here thinking if only Russert could moderate seventy debates next year instead of only fifty!

Comments

We did have Olbermann moderating one Dem debate this cycle...

Posted by Petey | January 25, 2008 10:20 AM

Ponnuru: With respect to the economic situation in East Asia, how would you respond to your critics who feel that you favor too protectionist of a position vis a vis free trade?

Candidate: Oh, I'm sorry, did you write a book which, in it's title, labels my political party a "Party of Death"? Go fuck yourself you smug fucking wingnut welfare queen bitch. Next question!

Posted by ed | January 25, 2008 10:21 AM

I agree, but it doesn't build the brand of Russert of a Very Serious Person Who Questions People Who Matter.

Posted by delicious Pundit | January 25, 2008 10:22 AM

"Katrina vanden Heuvel and Harold Meyerson know the questions actual Democrats would like to see the Democratic candidates answer."

There's also the problem that if vanden Heuvel and Meyerson, (or better, Tomasky), were to moderate a debate, who would air it?

Russert doesn't get the work because he's the best. Russert gets the work because he's the one General Electric chooses.

And General Electric controls what appears in folks' living rooms, not, Katrina vanden Heuvel and Howard Dean.

Posted by Petey | January 25, 2008 10:24 AM

I've never understood why they didn't just get Rush Limbaugh to moderate a debate. How could any of the Republicans refuse?

Posted by right | January 25, 2008 10:26 AM

Finally, I thought Fox ran the two best GOP debates, precisely because Fox understands what Republicans are concerned about.

This is the advantage of having a partisan network on your side.

Posted by Petey | January 25, 2008 10:26 AM

Tangentially, while I appreciate your Russert-bashing, Matthew, I don't think you fully appreciate the GE ideology that Russert fronts, and the influence that has over the process.

For example, the reason that Obama has felt it necessary to keep his distance from SS and unions is precisely to win the Russert primary. And Russert enforces those priorities entirely to hew to GE's ideology.

Jack Welch's influence continues to dominate the American political mainstream.

Posted by Petey | January 25, 2008 10:32 AM

You ought to take this suggestion all the way - have conservatives and liberals interview the candidates from both parties. Having just conservatives interview Republicans and liberals just Democrats reinforces a somewhat artificial division of the parties. Let all the candidates be challenged by those who will question their underlying ideological assumptions and viewpoints.

Posted by Sheldon | January 25, 2008 10:35 AM

For example, the reason that Obama has felt it necessary to keep his distance from SS and unions is precisely to win the Russert primary. And Russert enforces those priorities entirely to hew to GE's ideology.

Jack Welch's influence continues to dominate the American political mainstream.

Proof, please.

Posted by Brian | January 25, 2008 10:37 AM

Good thing all-powerful General Electric would never let KvH appear on ABC's This Week or MSNBC's Hardball oh, a BAZILLION times.

Posted by infirm | January 25, 2008 10:38 AM

"Good thing all-powerful General Electric would never let KvH appear on ABC's This Week or MSNBC's Hardball oh, a BAZILLION times."

Welch is retired, and Dan Abrams has been making attempts to move MSNBC, especially, back to the center. This is why Olbermann's show exists, as well as bringing in voices like Rachel Maddow.

However, Welch's prize hires of former Dem staffers converted to his ideology - Russert and Matthews - continue to preside over GE's prestige events, like MTP and Presidential debates. And Russert and Matthews also continue to strongly front for Welch's pet political projects of weakening unions and government entitlement programs.

-----

(And as far as who appears on ABC's This Week, that's run by Disney, not GE. And not coincidentally, This Week doesn't have the same anti-left agenda that MTP has.)

Posted by Petey | January 25, 2008 10:44 AM

not, Katrina vanden Heuvel and Howard Dean.

What's the point of being a liberal fascist if you have no game?

I almost feel sorry for them.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 25, 2008 10:44 AM

...a panel of smart conservative ideologues...

Wouldn't that exclude National Review, or at least Jonah, from hosting?

Posted by Jack | January 25, 2008 10:55 AM

Especially given the enormous quantity of debates that both fields are enduring this cycle, why can't we have more experimentation with the formats?

My guess is ratings. Debates are now moderated from the standpoint of the conventional wisdom with a mix of gotcha questions, inane human interest questions, and informative questions for low-information voters. This draws tepid but bipartisan interest.

A debate of Democratic candidates moderated by Krugman, by contrast, would draw less interest from the right and the low-information — and its target market has been trained to expect debates like we now have, so it would take two or three election cycles before the networks saw any real benefit from the change. That's too far in the future for networks to gamble on when they have a product with predictable demand right now.

Posted by Cyrus | January 25, 2008 11:00 AM

While I applaud anything that gets Tim Russert off moderating these debates, Katrina Van den Heuvel makes me want to jab pencils in my eyes. Get a liberal to moderate the debate who won't use every question as an excuse to bash Bush and give liberals the appearance of being shrill and vindictive.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | January 25, 2008 11:01 AM

The way to have good debates would be to have the candidates ask the media questions:

Ms. Clinton to Chris Matthews: Why do you talk about my husbands sex life you repressed Irish git? How did you miss New Hampshire results so badly?

Mr Obama to Tim Russert: How did your ghostwriter help you in your book about your father? How did you feel once you were revealed as a tool of Dick Cheney?

Mr. Edwards to Maureen Dowd: Do you write about my hair, Mr. Obama's race and Ms Clinton's gender because you are too fucking lazy to write about the issues? Why did you repeat the falsehood that my partner in '00, Al Gore was the role model for Love Story?

Its a game the whole family can play!!

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 25, 2008 11:03 AM

Can we just change the name of this blog to the Matthew and Petey Show?

Posted by bg | January 25, 2008 11:20 AM

Jonah the Moderator: "Do you believe that liberal fascists should be horded into camps and exterminated, just like liberals did to conservatives in Nazi Germany?"

Posted by jim | January 25, 2008 11:28 AM

Jonah: "Quick follow-up: would you agree that the white Aryan male is the Jew of today's liberal fascism?"

Posted by jim | January 25, 2008 11:31 AM

Great idea, but instead of fucking journalists and fucking professional ideologues why not real Americans of high accomplishment and good discussion moderation skills not compromised as Party hacks?

Especially people selected and informed that they are to serve in a role where their profession and past accomplishments give them broad perspectives and they are not their to pimp for candidates to pander to them or play identity politics of hero cops, victim worker, noble selfless University President, suffering breast cancer survivor wanting mo', mo', mo' money!

Where they ask questions in relevant areas of knowledge or experience, but not about their profession. Like a Command Master sargeant asking the candidates what their philosophy and experience is in leading and motivating people - not "how much more money will you pay us heroes who suffered for all of you"?.

Something like a panel of:

1.Retired Command Master Sargeant of the USAF.
2.Retired US District Court judge of broad, nonideological experience.
3.Head of a Major US bank doing business in 80 countries.
4.Head of a US science Foundation.
5. A high-level religious figure.
6. A respected "senior statesman".
7. A high-ranking foreigner. A Tony Blair, or a Japanese or Nigerian Ambassador to the USA.

Far better than fucking Russer or Matthews or Stephanopolus asking stupid, shallow, predictable gotcha questions or their patented "let's dredge up two conflicting statements on a trivial issue a politician makes so they might explain it and confuse the matter further."

Posted by chris ford | January 25, 2008 11:41 AM

"However, Welch's prize hires of former Dem staffers converted to his ideology - Russert and Matthews - continue to preside over GE's prestige events, like MTP and Presidential debates"

I, too, would like some proof that Jack Welch had anything to do with hiring the political pundits on GE-owned networks. He hired the guys who hired the guys who hired Russert and Matthews, sure, but I seriously doubt he hired Russert and Matthews.

I'm not sure it's such a great idea to make the debates more partisan in nature. Strong partisans are already tremendously overrepresented in the process, relative to their share of the population.

Posted by too many steves | January 25, 2008 11:50 AM

National Review couldn't possibly be a debate moderator, especially since Romney bought the National Review's endorsement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/us/politics/11romney.html

Mr. Romney and a group of his supporters also contributed a total of about $10,000 to a nonprofit group affiliated with National Review. Over the past two years, he contributed $35,000 to the Federalist Society, an influential network of conservative lawyers. And in December 2005, he contributed $25,000 to the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative research organization.

Ten thousand bucks will buy a lot of "Big Love" DVDs for K-Lo and keep Dough Bob Load Pants in Cheetos for at least a week.

Posted by calipygian | January 25, 2008 11:52 AM

Personally, I would LOVE to watch a Republican debate moderated by a conservative Republican. Just think how entertainingly out of touch with reality/mainstream/voters the questions would be...

But what TYPE of flesh-eating bacteria would you stock the 2,000 mile border moat inside the electric fence with?

Who is more evil, Osama bin Laden or Hitlery Clinton?

Why, do you think, liberals hate America so much?

Do you support lowering the minimum wage, or just wage stagnation resulting in the erosion of buying power for the working poor?

Just how idiotic are those folks who got those subprime loans, anyway? Why on earth did they think they should ever be able to get a house, and why should we help them now?

If they stop excluding Ron Paul and maybe invite back some of the dropouts -- Tom "Keep on Tankin'" Tancreado, baby, I'm lookin' at you -- you have got a top-notch party on your hands.

Posted by Jen | January 25, 2008 11:53 AM

(And as far as who appears on ABC's This Week, that's run by Disney, not GE. And not coincidentally, This Week doesn't have the same anti-left agenda that MTP has.)

It's interesting. Disney has obviously have a right ward bent. Just because George S. used to do Dana Perino's job in the Clinton WH doesn't mean much. As was stated, just look at Tweety and Punkinhead. I wonder why George doesn't trash Democrats more. It would surely help his career prospects I'd think. Wouldn't Faux Noise be tempted to hire him(or at least make ABC get into a bidding war) as an Alan Colmes type, only a lot better looking?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 25, 2008 11:55 AM

smart conservative ideologues

Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Posted by commie atheist | January 25, 2008 12:25 PM

Jen, exactly. The reason that you won't see a Republican debate moderated by movement conservatives is that the Republican candidates themselves would want no part of the freakshow that would inevitably ensue. Such a debate would be a minefield of "bomb, bomb Iran" moments fated to YouTube immortality.

A debate moderated by house-broken conservatives with TV experience, e.g., David Brooks, William Kristol, Rich Lowry, might not be as embarrassing, but wouldn't reveal much about the candidates, either, as the questions would invariably be softballs designed, not to evoke distinctions between the candidates, but to enhance the Republican brand and the electability of whoever emerged in the end as the nominee; i.e., "How did Ronald Reagan change your life?" "How important is your religious faith?", etc.

Posted by kth | January 25, 2008 12:32 PM

You name Democrats but no "smart conservative ideologues". Because there aren't any! Well, there may be, but those people are not respected in Republican circles. The people respected are hardline wingnut hacks like Podhoretz, Kristol, and Rich Lowry. Those people exist to advance Republican talking points, not engage and advance a strain of strong conservative thought into the mainstream. Sully's book last year is the sort I have in mind, but Sully is not well loved by Republicans (or Democrats for that matter).

Modern conservatism is a top-down movement and anyone who is anyone in that movement knows this. You will not see these guys argue any of the candidates unless its because the candidate doesn't think liberals and terrorists are BFF. It would be a farce.

On second though, maybe that's what voters need to see.

Posted by Joshua | January 25, 2008 12:37 PM

"It's interesting. Disney has obviously have a right ward bent."

Well, no.

I don't mean that Disney is a progressive voice, but it's a solidly Democratic corporation, both traditionally and today. Their executive bundling goes far more to Dems than Republicans.

General Electric, on the other hand, is a Republican corporation, both traditionally and today. Much like Disney, GE wants to seem non-partisan, rather appearing to be a Fox-like partisan player, but GE still tilts right.

Don't forget that GE makes a huge amount of its money from military contracting and healthcare delivery. Best I can tell, their main interest in broadcasting is to use it to defend their other corporate interests.

Posted by Petey | January 25, 2008 12:52 PM

The problem as I see it is that the political parties are terrified of getting on the wrong side of the networks, as though it were 1978. How much of the money sloshing around national politics do networks bank? And all the while, their cultural relevance collapses more slowly & just as surely as the newspapers.

Seriously, no one in the Democratic Party can afford to rent a studio? The agenda of the consultants (in either party) must be to keep candidates from debating, because debates can't be controlled as well as rallies or 30-second spots. But citizens need the exact opposite.

I kinda wish somebody (Dr. Dean?) would step up & propose a 45-minute (or so) debate every week, and make the debate available to anyone who wants it; candidates may nominate moderators themselves, unless they skip a debate...

Remember, if more than half the delegates will be named by Super Tuesday, then nearly half the delegates will be awarded after Super Tuesday.

I'll cop to it: I think a brokered convention would ever so much fun. But how much more fun if the platform actually matters? Debates & split delegations favor positions over personality--and I'm sick of seeing Presidents elected on a platform promising, essentially, to continue seeming vaguely preferable to the alternative. Winning 2008 with no mandate could be disastrous; the best argument against any Democrat is concern about 2012.

Posted by Rah | January 25, 2008 12:55 PM

Get rid of moderators asking questions. The best part of any debate is when the candidates address each other. Have a moderator there, but only to make sure everyone gets enough time to speak, and set a specific topic for each debate, say health care, or Iraq, or urban issues.

Posted by mad6798j | January 25, 2008 12:56 PM

There have been interest-group "forums" on both sides, but having ego-driven ideologue-pundits or sanctimonious activists ask the questions? Candidates say: no thanks, I'll pander to you on my own terms. Journalists may be idiotic moderators but at least it's a game the candidates know how to play.

Posted by Other Ezra | January 25, 2008 1:02 PM

MSNBC != NBC News.

I'd like to see the BBC's Washington correspondents moderate one with an emphasis on foreign policy. Or the BBC World Service, with questions sent in from all over the world. Yeah, it's not suited to the primary season, but it's going to come up with questions that are off the domestic narrative.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 25, 2008 1:19 PM

"He hired the guys who hired the guys who hired Russert and Matthews, sure, but I seriously doubt he hired Russert and Matthews."

No. That's not how things worked in the Welch era.

Welch personally recruited Russert and Matthew, both former very high level Democratic staffers, and taught them the precise ideological objectives for GE.

Welch was following the previous GE example of Lemuel Boulware, who recruited the pro-Labor Democrat Ronald Reagan to work for GE and spread it's political philosophyl

Eeagan was a self-confessed Democrat and New Dealer when he arrived at GE. After his eight-year "postgraduate course in political science," conducted largely under the aegis of GE's vice president and labor strategist, Lemuel Boulware, Ronald Reagan came to expound on the need to reduce taxes and limit government. He described international communism, as Boulware and GE president Ralph Cordiner did, as "evil." He observed Boulware, who was regarded by many in corporate America as the most successful labor negotiator of all time, and Reagan himself became a knowledgeable negotiator during this period, equally at ease with corporate executives and blue-collar workers. His education stretched well beyond the bargaining table. He became familiar with such diverse thinkers as von Mises, Lenin, Hayek, and the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu. He read and reread the practical economics of Henry Hazlitt. He quoted Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton.

Lemuel Boulware believed that it was not enough to win over company employees on narrow labor issues. They must not only accept the offer but pass on GE's essentially conservative message to others, helping the company to win voters at the grass roots who would elect officials and pass legislation establishing a better business climate. In short, they would become "communicators" and "mass communicators," (Boulware's words) as they went through the company's extensive education program. In time, the program would also help to produce a "great communicator."

Broadcasting is not a money cow for GE. Broadcasting is their way of achieving their national political aims.

Perhaps Immelt no longer subscribes to the long-standing Welch & Boulware GE creed, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Posted by Petey | January 25, 2008 2:00 PM

Let Jonah moderate:

"Governor Romney:Kirk or Piccard?!"

Posted by Jamey | January 25, 2008 4:11 PM

I take it you did not watch the Values Voters debate.

Nor the conservative Republican moderated debates on Fox News.

So when does The Atlantic hand the Michael Kelly Award to Jonah Goldberg?

Posted by Roger Ailes | January 25, 2008 7:58 PM

I take it you did not watch the Values Voters debate.

Nor the conservative Republican moderated debates on Fox News.

So when does The Atlantic hand the Michael Kelly Award to Jonah Goldberg?

Posted by Roger Ailes | January 25, 2008 7:58 PM

But I repeat myself.

Posted by Roger Ailes | January 25, 2008 8:00 PM

I don't know why the questions can't come in over an Internet connection from anybody in the country. There can be some pre-selection like any radio or TV phone-in show, but the questions should come from the people.

The pre-selection should be oriented to weeding out obvious cranks, pointless questions about personal preferences, and concentrate on picking genuine questions about issues of concern to the public.

Really, though, clearly the point of having broadcast news clowns ask the questions is to establish them as the mediators between the public and the candidates. I mean, clearly we can't have Presidential candidates being responsible to the rubes they're ruling, now can we? What kind of precedent would that set in a "democracy"?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 25, 2008 8:37 PM

What you gonna do to pursurve the whiite race?

Posted by mike | January 25, 2008 11:14 PM