Vinick v. Santos

11.07.2005

Technorati tag:

Before I forget to mention this. If you missed last night's The West Wing, you really missed out. No, there wasn't lots of TV drama, w/ characters doing things, or action-packed events. It was just two guys talking about political issues. But it was amazing.

The GOP candidate Arnie Vinick (Alan Alda) debated the Dem candidate Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits). They're both great, idealistic, honest, charismatic, candidates who clawed their way out of tough primaries as underdogs. Then they met on stage, in a live TV airing, to debate.

And know what? They really did. This wasn't your regularly scripted debate w/ a one-minute soundbite followed by a 30-second soundbite, w/ the candidates not allowed to speak to each other. Instead, they tossed out the rules & just went at each other. They asked each other questions, then hammered at each other asking for convincing answers. The moderator barely intervened, there was even audience participation. And the two ended up giving clear examples of their government philosophies, their platforms, and their goals.

I wonder if that's what it used to be. I wonder if that's what the Lincoln-Douglas debates were like. I wonder what would happen if presidential debates were held like that, rather than watching two cardboard cutouts rehash their "best-of-CSPAN" clips.

I can't wait to see how the rest of the season plays out.

Posted by Miguel at 10:52 PM

Comments

If it happened, I think we'd get MUCH better candidates every election. Which is also why I believe it WON'T happen.

As an instructor in Lincoln-Douglas debate technique (college students participate in this all across the country, of which Western has a team), I can honestly say that there is probably no better style of how to truly guage the ability of a person to think on his or her feet and be able to defend ideas while under a discerning eye.

Posted by: Duane Gundrum at November 8, 2005 08:30 AM

Yes, but I think if we (as voters) insisted, then candidates would have to step up. Call me a hopeless idealist.

Posted by: Miguel [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2005 11:25 AM

The Lincoln-Douglas debate technique sounds a hell of a lot like oral arguments in court.

Since most politicians have been to law school, they know very well the nature of a good debate; but I think the risks of screwing up a debate against a good political orator outweigh the benefits to the peeps.

Posted by: tom at November 8, 2005 03:23 PM

It was interesting, but I missed a discussion on some very contentious issues that were covered in the past episodes, such as abortion, Supreme Court nominations, etc. N.

Posted by: Nenad at November 9, 2005 08:08 PM

I thought the acting was great, better even than West Wing's usual fare, which is pretty good to start with. What impressed me most was how much educating the show did about various issues. I read international news a lot, but I didn't know that the tax rates in poor African countries were so high, and that they were that way because of the loans. I thought there was also some good information conveyed about drug prices and border issues. One of the things I've come to respect about West Wing, and not just in this episode, is that they do a lot of education, about issues and about the workings of government.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 11, 2005 05:18 PM

I think that with the firm grasp the two parties have on our electoral process, it would also help to have less structured debates before primaries. That way the country might get excited about a candidate - having fully seen the choices - and hopefully the party would choose that candidate.

The parties would still go with the safest and most electable person, but perhaps the more open debates would bring a more pragmatic candidate to the front.

Posted by: brian [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 14, 2005 09:39 AM