Campaigning for a Better Campaign : New network proposal for presidential debates emphasizes substance over showmanship

The four major television networks have come up with a better idea for debates between major-party presidential candidates next year.

ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC have joined in a proposal to bring the two candidates together in a studio for head-to-head confrontations. Departing from previous formats, there would be no audience present to disregard requests not to applaud statements by their favorite. There would be no negotiated panel of questioners whose search for precise answers would be regularly frustrated as the candidates instead offered bland generalities of little relevance to what had been asked. There would be only a moderator and the candidates themselves, called on to do 90 minutes of forensic battle.

What would be gained from this approach? The chance, which is becoming all but extinct in our political culture, to emphasize substance over showmanship. The chance for voters to be exposed to information instead of just imagery. Maybe even an opportunity to see whether candidates are able to acquit themselves spontaneously, instead of having to rely on a script. The aim, said the networks in their proposal, “is to promote the freest possible exchange between the candidates on how they would lead the country.” That idea, which is not exactly calculated to shake the republic to its foundations, nonetheless seems almost radical in this era of news management and spin control.

The nonpartisan League of Women Voters, which has helped organize previous television encounters involving the candidates, says it strongly favors the proposal. The Democratic and Republican national committees have responded by saying, in so many words, “We’ll have to get back to you on that.” The parties say they are reluctant to commit themselves before the wishes of their yet-unchosen candidates are known. But maybe it’s time to stop worrying about what the candidates might find comfortable and politically rewarding and instead give primacy to what would best serve the electorate.

The four networks, more than a year in advance of the 1992 election, are offering six prime-time hours to the candidates--three 90-minute sessions between the presidential contenders, one 90-minute debate between the vice presidential candidates. This is pure political gold. The major difference this time is that the candidates wouldn’t be permitted to dictate the format. This time, there would be a series of one-on-one encounters. From the public’s standpoint it’s a splendid idea. But how long has it been since the public’s interest was allowed to count for much in a presidential campaign?