The Crossed Pond

Stop the presses: we’ve finally found an issue about which Andrew Sullivan and I disagree.

Sullivan more or less calls the Republicans old fuddy-duddies for waffling over whether to participate in the September YouTube debate. He notes that Giuliani has already ducked out and that Mitt Romney isn’t fond of the idea either. Money quote from Romney:

“I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman,” he said in an interview yesterday.

Well, here’s the thing: Romney is right.

I think it was clear from my live-blogging tirades that I was not at all a fan of the YouTube format. Time has not improved my opinion, and I think that now I have a clearer understanding of the reasons why I reacted so negatively and so angrily.

1. The YouTube format points the cameras in the wrong direction. I suppose it’s pretty evident at this point, with the American people having been collectively and individually declared Time’s “Person of the Year,” that we find ourselves to be at least equally worthy of airtime as the likes of Mike Gravel. YouTube is a success precisely because it offers us a shot at our ten minutes by doing something unique and/or stupid. And that’s fine; it’s just not something that should be integrated into the process of selecting a President. The decision of what questions ought to be asked of Presidential candidates in a limited-time format is an important one, to which rigor should be applied. One of the criteria should NOT be, “is this cleverly crafted and presented by somebody who ‘looks like America’?” Simply put: I don’t want the Presidential debate to be about the audience, I want it to be ABOUT THE CANDIDATES. The alternative is both populist and patronizing.

2. The YouTube format represents dumbing down in its purest form. Dumb has its place; that place is NOT a debate for the leadership of the free world. I will be blunt: the questions which were asked of the candidates were not just silly; many were flat-out bad. The question which sparked the most direct confrontation did so by being simultaneously too specific (demanding a specific summit with specific leaders on a specific timetable) and too vague (failing to identify the preconditions for that summit, thereby causing two candidates to make completely different assumptions as to what they were being asked). The Bubbas from Tennessee: entertaining but dumb. The snowman: a replacement of any relevant angle on the question with a cheesy gimmick. Gun guy: a deliberate attempt to oversimplify and to encourage visceral response. It isn’t all the fault of the candidates that this was one of the poorest substantive debates on record; they weren’t given much to work with. I’m sorry if this strikes James as being “elitist,” but anyone who thinks that your average joe can ask questions as well-crafted as a top-echelon journalist is simply fooling themselves.

3. The YouTube debate provokes even less confrontation–less actual DEBATE, in other words–than a standard debate format. It does this in two ways. First of all, the questions tend to be broad-based assessments of issues, and the issues selected generally are not the ones which sharply divide candidates within any one party (wow, all of the Democrats agree that global warming is a threat–be still my beating heart). Secondly, the time demands forced upon the moderator prevent him or her from following up when the candidates DO disagree sharply and encouraging that particular matter to be debated at greater length and in more detail.

4. The YouTube debate is informal. Yes, I object to this. I object to the entire “regular-guy-ification” of American politics. Simply put, we do not need another George W. Bush who looks like a guy we’d like to have a beer with. We CERTAINLY don’t need a bunch of mannequins to fawn obsequiously at a screen displaying America’s “cleverness” with great big fake smiles on their faces (recall that I loved Biden’s willingness to criticize at least one of his questioners). We need somebody who thinks quickly under real pressure and who can demonstrate a truly thorough grasp of complex policy. No, the regular debates aren’t giving us enough of that, but YouTube takes us a good distance in the wrong direction.

Now, all this having been said: should candidates duck out of the YouTube debate, and should we expect them to? It’s a rough matter to consider. My basic feeling is that I can’t particularly fault candidates for putting themselves through this circus any more than I can fault them for making the compulsory Cheese Steak order in Philly. But I’m sure as hell not inclined to punish them for opting out. If Rudy Giuliani wants to give the debate a pass, that’s fine with me–more mic time for Ron Paul. Romney, of course, won’t duck out; as always, he’ll try to have it both ways, by being critical of the event but playing the game anyway.

The bottom line is that I want my politics rigorous and analytical. As a smart person, I can get all the entertainment I need out of a confrontation that meets those standards. If I want entertainment for its OWN sake, I’ll watch something else. American politics should never put entertainment first.