I was talking with someone who moved to Cleveland fairly recently when she abruptly stopped to ask me about a recent column, which had sparked a thoughtful conversation with her husband.
That’s the holy grail here: sparking thoughtful conversation. For in conversation, we find enlightenment, empathy and understanding. It is how we reach agreement.
I hope to spark more conversation with this column, which is about a different form of conversation: political debate. Well, at least, political debate should be a conversation. Often it is not.
Our chief politics writer, Andrew Tobias wrote a piece this week that explored whether debates between candidates for statewide office are heading into oblivion. Four years ago, then Gov. John Kasich declined to debate Ed FitzGerald in Kasich’s re-election effort. FitzGerald was a joke of a candidate in the end, and Kasich did not want to give him credibility by appearing on stage with him.
Gov. Mike DeWine declined to debate Jim Renacci in his primary run this year, probably for the same reason, but now, it appears that DeWine will not debate his Democratic challenger, former Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, either.
As Andrew’s story shows, candidates have plenty of ways to reach voters today that did not exist when debates became mainstream decades ago. Candidates don’t believe they need the debates to spread their messages.
I suspect another reason is that the media is often involved in debates, hosting and moderating them. As the nation has become polarized, Republican candidates portray journalists as tools of the left. For some candidates, participating in debates would mean working with the media that their messaging often vilifies.
Okay, so journalists are not tools of the left. That’s a trope. But the truth doesn’t matter for some candidates, who use the anti-media message to drum up support.
I do think, though, that the media has taken an outsized role in debates. Journalists usually are the moderators, and social media traffic following debates often focuses a good bit on how the moderators performed. Why should anyone care? Journalists are not the story. The candidates are the story.
What if you took the journalists out of the picture? What if, instead of having journalists or anyone else asking the questions, we let the candidates ask them?
We’ve been toying in our newsroom with hosting a debate in the Cuyahoga County Executive’s race in which the candidates ask each other questions. If Republican Lee Weingart went first, for example, we’d give him 30 or 45 second to frame a question for Democrat Chris Ronayne.
Then, Ronayne would have a couple of minutes to answer, after which Weingart would get a minute to rebut him and Ronayne would have a minute to rebut the rebuttal. Next, Ronayne would ask Weingart a question.
Think about the value voters would get from hearing the issues selected by the candidates to put in front of each other. That could demonstrate their priorities. Maybe more important, what might we learn from the way those questions are posed? Would candidates go at each other like attack dogs, revealing a confrontational style, or would they be measured, revealing a thoughtfulness voters might value.
And if the candidates are asking the questions, we would expect them to be pointed, to probe their opponents for weakness. That means we’d see how each candidate responds to being on the hot seat. Serving in public office often involves dealing with crises. Voters should know how candidates handle pressure, and this kind of debate would put them under pressure.
Too often today, candidates are asked questions in debates and settle into boring talking points. In a debate where their opponent asks the questions, the opponents could also call out non-answers in their rebuttal, highlighting the obfuscation for the audience.
If we do stage a debate, it would likely be at The Plain Dealer printing plant on Tiedeman Road, which has lots of room and parking. That would be a different kind of debate setting for a different kind of debate.
What we don’t know is whether anyone would care. Voters might feel like they are getting all the information they need to make their choices, so this kind of debate – or any kind of debate – might not have value to them. We wouldn’t want to go to the trouble if the need does not exist. Quite possibly, voters might think the traditional debate the candidates are having at the City Club later this month suffices.
What do you think? Would you find value in a debate where the candidates ask the questions? Would you like it if the journalists got out of the way and the candidates were the sole focus? Would this kind of debate do what conversation should, bringing enlightenment, empathy and understanding?
Let me know, if you are so inclined. I’m at cquinn@cleveland.com
