A Modest Proposal

As most of us are painfully aware of, there will be a 15th Presidential debate on television tonight. To put that into perspective, if every person got to talk for ten minutes per debate, we would have listened to each person talk for two and a half hours. What did we get for this time? Can we all describe the candidate's plans for social security in full detail? Can we describe how they would actually reduce spending instead of just restating their pledge to do so? Unfortunately we cannot in some cases, this is because the format just doesn't allow it. In other cases, it's because the candidates don't actually have a plan.

Debates have their place. They tell us about the personality of the candidate, their speaking manner, their ability to handle competition and criticism, and how they treat each other. Before the radio and television, debates also allowed parties and individuals to champion their positions and platforms. That changed when debates began to be aired.

The modern debate is little more than theater. Moderators that are supporters of the party or candidate throw canned questions and wait for canned answers, while those that oppose them make thinly veiled accusations in the form of a question or make attempts to provoke the candidates into fighting with each other.

We can do better. Instead of debates, the networks could host a series of forums that are devoted to a single subject. The candidates would not intreract with each other. Each man or woman would be given 10-12 minutes to present their point of view on the subject of the day. Instead of forcing the candidates to work from memory and spout canned lines, new media would be encouraged. This could include powerpoint style presentations or having the candidates simply show videos.

Some people may think that this sort of thing is better reserved for the candidate's campaign websites. However, the simple fact is that most candidates put out as little information as possible and rely on broad statements and platitudes. As an example, Congressman Gingrich's campaign put out a long white paper on social security and discussed the broad implications of the plan, how to implement it, and the drawbacks of the plan. The other candidates have mostly just pledged to "save the system" or "honor the promises to our seniors." It's time for this sort of thing to stop.

Of course, the candidate could chose to make a 10-12 minute presentation that was just as factless as their websites. However, seen in comparison to candidates that actually present and discuss plans, those candidates will quickly be seen as lacking substance.

As a starting point, here is a list of several possible topics for these forums. You'll notice that these subjects mirror the categories of the candidates and representatives under their profiles in this website.

Social Issues - This topic would allow the candidate to discuss their positions on marriage, abortion, or any other issue. This would include a discussion of past votes or records as Governor or in another office. It could / should include their views on abortion overall, if they believe in the exceptions for rape and incest, and whether or not they believe that the federal government should be involved in marriage and abortion.

Immigration - The most avoided topic in politics should have numerous forums, but one would be enough for now. Candidates could discuss the history of immigration and immigration related law in the country before presenting their plans. This would give the people a better idea of how the candidate would behave towards established law if elected. Would they actually enforce US immigration law, would they stop states from acting or ask them for assistance, etc

Taxes - Tax policy is one area where promises are constantly made and often never intended to be fulfilled. The simple fact is that  Presidents can't simply enact whatever policies they desire without definitive action from Congress. Still, the candidate could outline their overall tax views and then outline feasible plans for the future.

Foreign Policy - Foreign policy is complicated. We can't expect to know how candidates will respond to all future events and we can't allow them to monday morning quarterback current events. They could outline their overall policies and then address whatever individual countries they chose. The time limits would also allow people to see what countries the candidate views as most important.

Education - No one would have agreed to No Child Left Behind if they knew that it wouldn't be funded. Forcing the candidates to discuss their plans in more detail will reveal that the plan was way too expensive before it was implemented. Forcing candidates to do more than state that the federal goverment should be less involved with school will be a learning experience for us all.

Energy and the Environment - Global warming, cap and trade, the key-stone pipeline, and a number of other broad and detailed subjects could be covered. This would include where the candidates would allow drilling, and what they would do to transition to new technologies if that was their desire.

Health Care - Filibuster proof majorities in the House and Senate weren't enough for the Democrats to get health care through Congress without a painful and convoluted process. The results were something that no one was really happy with. What if we forced these sort of plans to the surface before the election? No plan has to be perfect, but at least we wouldn't find out after it was signed into law that health care programs are paid for by making private loans for college illegal and using the government profit for health care - as is the case with Obamacare.

The Economy - I can't really tell you what this means. Congressman Paul would use the time to discuss the differences between Keynesian and Austrian economic theories, and the federal reserve bank. Others would discuss the influences of tax and trade. Still, 10-12 minutes of what's wrong and how to fix it would provide a good starting point for each person's plan for the economy.

Debt, Deficit, Spending - This is separate from the economy. I want to know how each candidate views debt. Do they believe that spending and revenue must be balanced for the government, or is some deficit spending OK. What are their views on inflation and monetary policy? Where would they cut spending and why? With 10 minutes, there should be plenty of details.

Homeland Security - This should be the central theme of this election and not the economy. On the last day of 2011, the President signed a bill into law that allows US citizens to be designated as enemy combatants and then arrested on US soil and questioned indefinitely without the right to an attorney. Bills have been introduced to strip citizenship from those accused of allying with al-Qaeda, and the floor speeches related to these items sounded more like hollywood proganda than intelligent discussion. Do the candidates support TSA checkpoints at the airports and other places? Do they support the massive funding for these apparatuses and do they believe that the US is riddled with citizens planning its demise?

Social Security - Like we said, Congressman Gingrich has ventured into the area of proposing a plan for social security, but none of them really want to talk about it. The reason for that is that every candidate with the exception of Ron Paul supports means testing. This is the practice of refusing benefits to those that have the means to pay for themselves. If you don't do that, the system is insolvent and most candidates will avoid saying anything other than they support raising the retirement age slightly and pursuing all options. It's time to see some math. Show us how you would solve it and show us that your solutions works.

Welfare and Unemployment - This has unexpectedly become an issue of some importance due to remarks made by candidates relating to those receiving 99 weeks of benefits. Would the candidate make reforms and if so, what areas would they pursue. The candidate could also note what they desire to see changed and what is feasible to get through Congress.