TO LISTEN or NOT TO LISTEN ? - THIS TRULY is the QUESTION
Here we go again. The presidential election game is on - (oh no not again). And if things go according to history much of what will be heard will be an utter waste of precious time. In place of the truth distilled from facts necessary to make informed decisions, more likely we will be subjected to an avalanche of lies, exaggerations, evasions, denials, cover ups, all gross distortions of the truth.
Wouldn't it be a blessing if each and all of the candidates was inoculated with truth serum before each debate? Nice fantasy you say - but get real - this is not going to happen. Seems like nothing left but to resign ourselves to "politics as usual " - in the worst sense of this term - and hope that the 'best' person will somehow emerge from the muck and mire of the non sense we are doomed to have to endure.
However - there is a radical way to cut through the fog. What is needed is an alteration in method to force light to penetrate the calculated darkness. Following is my radical proposal for altering the structure of the presidential debates with the hope of forcing potential clarity to shine instead of settling for the typical bad taste often experienced at the close of most of these exchanges.
My formula is simple. The rules of the debate should require assertions of each presenter to be responded to in a direct manner by those to whom the assertions are directed including the moderators. This means that the format of these debates requires an on going true dialogue. Such a format will challenge obvious evasions, lies, cover- ups, denials, exaggerations and the likes.
Example - Mr. Perry you claim that you are the true jobs candidate having generated the most jobs in the country. However, isn't it a fact that many of your jobs are government jobs largely derived from the large stimulus you received from the Federal government?
Example: To all the Republican candidates: Each of you affirm liberty of the individual to be a supreme right meaning the government should largely mind its own business? Yet - at the same time - you all are on record as wishing to change the abortion laws often insisting that women who abort have to listen to information which is clearly partisan?
Example: Mr. Obama - with respect to your Medical plan - if the mandate is not enacted who is going to pay for those who do not opt in?
This may mean that these discussions will overflow the typical limits of the usual two hour formats. So be it . Why not have marathon debates? If this is not a viable method aimed at generating clarity then I welcome suggestions for some better method.