OPINION:
Donald Trump has a knack for drawing attention to a problem, but rarely has a way to fix it. He has done that again, largely by accident, with his row with Fox News over the Republican debates.
Roger Ailes, the chief of Fox News, is perfectly in the right to refuse to let Mr. Trump or any other candidate dictate who sits as a moderator in Fox debates. The Donald took a beating when Megyn Kelly tried to force him into answering questions about his ferocious monologues, often at the expense of women. His monologues are largely without substance but they have seduced the media, Fox News included. The Donald’s intransigence leading up to Thursday night’s debate transformed a feud into a war between beauty and the beast, and the beauty won.
This was almost inevitable when the issue of who runs the debates, and why, was left to the marketplace. In a race for ratings and attention, the various television networks have guaranteed debate junk. Some of the content of the debates — here’s looking at you, CNN and CNBC — has been cooked to a Democratic recipe. But given the givens, it could hardly be otherwise.
The Republican and Democratic Party national committees, which are all but useless in the new political environment dominated by social media, have been strung along. That defeats the way things ought to be, and could be.
Debates between candidates harks to a time before the invention of modern communication. The mid-19th century was the golden age, when the very personal argument between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas over the issues led up to the Civil War that Southerners more accurately call the War Between the States, since there was nothing civil about it. It’s important to remember that while both Lincoln and Douglas were smart politicians whose analysis and presentation were rhetorically brilliant, they did not head off the surprise election of Lincoln, nor the tragic events that followed.
The nation, facing many great and small political decisions, could use some of that Lincoln-Douglas brilliance today. An informed discussion of the issues would contribute to decisions by the winners. That can’t be done if the debates are cooked, or thought to be cooked to a partisan recipe.
Before the next presidential election, a better way must be found. Arrangements should be in the hands of truly neutral planners, who would say how many debates there would be, when, and where. The candidates should be allowed to speak without interruptions from network talking heads, using the C-SPAN formula — aim the cameras and let the fun begin. Too much moderation stifles debate, and a moderator should be in place only to call security if things get out of hand. The candidates can deal with each other, and the devil can handle the hindmost. The ratings would soar out of sight, and the rest of us might actually learn something.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.