USD Magazine, Winter/Spring 1997

possible, or if the debate had to be cancelled. With some concern, the experts gave the project the go ahead. In three weeks, rows of recently installed seats in the theater had to be removed so the stage floor could be extended, and a new set had to be designed and built that would accommodate 113 town hall members, the two candidates and television cameras on one small stage.

Palitical axperts and journalists explared the impact al dabatas in tha alularal prac:ass at a debate day lunc:haan spansarad by USD's Carparala Associates program.

Logistics aside, debate organizers contend that the Republican and Democratic parties are disabling a vital electoral process by using the debates as an opportunity to seek political advantage rather than to educate the American public. "Who's at the helm (of the debate process)?" asked 1996 debate producer Bob Asman in a seminar following the election. "It's not the moderator. It's not the American public. It's not even the candi– dates who are at the helm. Right now, it's the campaign managers. "The debates serve as the only vehicle where we see the candi– dates for the highest office in the land facing each other on the same stage," he pointed out. Colleague and University of Kansas professor Diana Carlin agreed that the debates and the discussions they generate are influ– ential, especially as a motivating force for voting, and has the statis– tics to back her opinion. "Public dialogue about political issues is the only way to turn public apathy around," said Carlin, who coordinated the research for DebateWatch '96, a voter education program sponsored by the commission in which citizens were encouraged to watch the debates in groups, then have formal dialogues and send summaries of their discussions to DebateWatch. Among the findings that Carlin reported from a focus group interview of the town hall participants at USD's Oct. 16 debate: 87 percent of the participants agreed that the debates increased their interest in following the remainder of the campaign more closely; 82 percent agreed that the debates taught them something new about one or both of the candidates; and 69 percent agreed that the debates made them more likely to vote. " p 2Jpeec£ c:S, r1l ·Jes ufuftl 0 und J.J 1 This topic of debates and their role in the electoral process was bandied about by moderator Sam Donaldson, co-anchor of ABC's "Prime Time Live," and a distinguished panel of guests at an Oct. 16 luncheon sponsored by USD's Corporate Associates program. "In the 1992 election exit polls, voters said the single most impor, tant education forum during the campaign was the debates," noted Paul G. Kirk Jr., co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates. Because both parties negotiate with damage control foremost in their minds, the end result is a rigid format - 90- and 60-second answers, 30-second rebuttals, no addressing the opponent directly - that benefits the candidates, not the American voters. The brief segments allow candidates to repeat stump speech sound bites, and prevents them from deliberating the issues in any depth. "I'm hoping that just as there is now an onus on candidates that they have to debate - no one can refuse - in the future they wiU

also have to agree to the kind of format voters would rather see, a free-for-all format," said Mara Liasson, White House correspondent for National Public Radio. "People aren't looking for entertainment," added David Broder, political correspondent and columnist for The Washington Post. "They are looking for answers from the candidates." Slowly but surely, the Commission on Presidential Debates has been making progress in changing the attitude of the parties toward the debates, noted Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., commission co-chairman. "Each time we (sponsor a series of debates), we convince the candidates to change, to modify," Fahrenkopf said. "It's a slow process. My suggestion for the next election is to have at least one of the debates in which they can ask each other questions with the ability to have follow-up." @of/jyin_yfe-r C£af2ge Like Fahrenkopf, some organizers of the 1996 debates are lobbying for changes that will support thoughtful dialogue in future debates. One solution is to include in the proposed Campaign Election Finance Reform Act of 1997 a rider that mandates debates and stipulates each candidate's party must sign a contract agreeing to the commission's debate program before party officials can take receipt of federal election funds. This rider would enable the com– mission to properly plan and structure a debate program that pro– motes a real discussion of the issues, and allow the hosts to have sufficient time to prepare their sites without fear of their plans being raggedly torn apart by the whims of the parties. "In the future, the commission, the American people, and the Congress are going to have to hold the political parties' feet to the fire to get them to agree to a real dialogue that goes beyond the nine-second sound bite, the negative attack ads and the siren shouts of spin doctors," Cannon says. "It seems to me that if a candidate for the highest office in the land is going to accept our taxpayer money through the Federal Election Commission, there should be some strings attached," asserts Asman. "They should be forced to debate. They are apply– ing for the highest job in the land. It's like a job interview. That's part of the process." -Trisha J. Ratledge

:a.a

M A & A Z

N E

U 5 D