On Thursday, the remaining two applicants for our presidential job opening will take to the stage to “debate” each other on national television.
One of the nominees is an octogenarian who has repeatedly demonstrated the verbal dexterity typical of many octogenarians, which is to say, stilted. Add on his lifelong speech impediment, and we get a job applicant whose mind may still be sharp but whose ability to speak it has understandably diminished.
The other has been disparaged by those who worked closely with him during his first term as an idiot who cannot be convinced of anything, as a moron, as someone with the understanding of a fifth or sixth grader, and as dumb as shit; additionally, his recent performances at the podium, not to mention the four years in which he stood at the bully pulpit, reveal a disconnect between logic, reality, and the words that eventually come out of what passes for his mind.
With both of them being less than nimble thinkers and incredibly hamstrung improvisational speakers, the upcoming debate can only be a depressing and difficult experience for national voters and (hopefully) the nadir of the national election cycle.
Unfortunately, the reality-television show that passes for national politics demands this opportunity to capture sound bytes and gotcha lines that can be replayed until the next attention-hogging moment pushes it out of the collective memory.
But it’s difficult to imagine an American voter who would be swayed one way or the other as a result of the televised debate. We already have countless examples of the nominees’ capabilities at a podium with a microphone, so one more seems gratuitous.
Instead of asking these two applicants for the highest job in the land to engage in a back and forth discussion that is clearly beyond their skills, I’d be more interested in having them sit for a written exam. It would have all the excitement of a televised chess match (which is to say, none), but it would better depict the mental acuity of the applicants than the verbal cage match the television audience hopes for.
The Rules for a Live Exam
First, it would be administered by a panel of highly-reputable investigative journalists, not attractive television anchors whose best claim to authority is their hairline and a lack of a regional accent.
Second, after receiving the prompt, each candidate would have two minutes to craft their thesis and introductory paragraph. This would give each candidate the foreknowledge of how their opponent will respond to the prompt and provide them with the chance to address their opponent’s thinking in their response.
Third, following the reveal of their introductory paragraphs, the candidates would have ten minutes to complete their response.
The writing process would be depicted live on screen – like watching someone else type in a Google Doc – so viewers (but not moderators) could observe the way the candidate’s mind works as they struggle to craft sentences, choose words, and transition from one idea to the next.
Fourth, when the ten minutes are up, the broadcast cuts for one or two minutes of commercials while the moderators read the answers and formulate one or two follow-up questions; the candidates get to do the same.
Finally, when the broadcast comes back, the moderators ask their follow-up questions. If their questions contain the questions created by the candidates, the candidates don’t get to ask their question; if the candidates came up with an original question, they may ask it.
The we move on to the next question.
Neither candidate or party, nor the television networks, would ever allow such a format, but it would be a far more valuable and insightful alternative to the spectacle we’ll see on Thursday.