Leader’s Debate Pub Night
Just for fun, but also, kind of semi-serious, I have been thinking of alternatives to the standard televised leader’s debates in elections. This is because the present set-up is considered too adversarial, is more about scoring sound bites like body checks instead of articulating policy viewpoints, and is stale and not entertaining.
My suggestion is to have the leaders sit at a pub over a few cold ones and just talk. The conversation would be filmed for viewing.
What we want from these debates, no matter the format is obvious: for the leaders to set out their positions and their ideas on how they would best run the country… to help us decide our vote if we’re not sure, to cement home our already made choice, to show democracy in practice, and perform important functions including political socialization and political education.
Typically, a political party’s entourage works out the details of these debates with the television network. But really, we know what the debates are like:
The leaders of the major political parties, all vying to win government and become or remain prime minister, stand behind their lecterns, facing a studio and the television audience.
The leaders may get a brief opening statement, and then take turns fielding questions. There can be time for each of the other leaders to respond to those questions. There can even be free-for-all minutes in which the debate can develop beyond the stilted answers.
The answers, of course, are dull, dull, and dull. I understand why. The leaders, believing so much is at stake, can hardly afford to wing it; there is much in the way of support to retain, grow and mostly, not lose.
The leaders are so busy preparing their next interjection that you can tell they are not fully listening to the others.
Everyone loves to use the Mulroney, “You had an option, Sir,” quip to John Turner as evidence of how much can turn on a sound bite. Viewers and the media now look for such a repeat “gotcha” moment when we desire detailed distinctions of the proposed policies of each of the parties.
To me, the questions are more irritating than the too-scripted, wooden responses. The media host invariably steals too much of the limelight, with long-winded questions.
Worse, the TV network’s (okay, the CBC’s) attempts to appear hip, utilizing the “latest” in technology, only brings us worse questions. These are in the form of allowing “regular” Canadians to field the questions, even through poor quality webcams. I can only hope the next set of debates doesn’t have questions “tweeted” and texted in.
Canadians love to say that politics is too adversarial. The debates are by their nature combative. This view strikes me as disingenuous when we’re also all looking for who will win and lose these events (and we don’t really know how to measure that, but do so).
My thought is to have the leaders sit at a booth in a pub, looking at each other, and just record their chat over a few beers and some wings and nachos.
I know this won’t happen, but what if it did!
I suggest there be no host and no prepared questions, and no trendy live chat or Skype, but hopefully a big screen TV with a hockey game on.
There would be no need for a studio audience, but if you just happened to be at the pub, hey, you might be on TV when you leave your seat to play some Keno or use the facilities.
I guess we could have some commercial breaks while the leaders shoot some pool.
No sheets of paper in front of each leader with their talking points, just small plates for the food and some napkins. A server needs to periodically come by to refill the pitchers of beer for our participants.
In this pub format, what I hope would happen is mostly this: the leaders would, you know, talk. Even some initial chit chat about the family, the game, the weather, the smell of the latrine on the campaign buses… might be revealing.
And then how would issues come up? What would they be? How would they be discussed in terms of presentation?
The setting hopefully requires the leaders to not be waiting for that moment when they can let fly there spontaneously pre-planned go-for-the-jugular sound bite (though I guess a bar fight would not be outside the realm of outcomes).
Being too forceful and aggressive will not come across well in this informal setting.
Things could get off track and the debate could be scattered, I admit. If the economy, the environment, health care and whatever topic aren’t all covered off, well, oh well, or let’s do it again another night, when appies are two-for-one.
This is how many Canadians discuss the issues, learn about them and form their opinions. And so it could be for our highest representatives to have their kick at the can.
Would more people tune in? I can’t predict.
I would think there would be an initial novelty factor. I mean, what kind of beer would each leader order? Certified organic apple cider for the Green Party leader, I suppose. For some reason I’m thinking non-alcoholic beer for Jack Layton. Or would they all go for Molson Canadian to try to appropriate some corporate pseudo patriotism… be bold and original with a microbrewery’s stout? (Not their bitter, I suppose for appearances sake).
It’s tricky to run a country, and so is eating a gooey handful of nachos (a shared dish, by the way). Which leader can stomach the lava-hot fire wings?
Would there be any toasts to the Canadian democratic process?
Would the leaders go Dutch, or should the incumbent settle the tab? What kind of a tip would that leader leave?
So there is this possible association to reality TV. Yet, I think it will be more interesting, revealing, educational and entertaining than what we’ve always stuck with.
After ninety minutes or so of banter, the house band could squeeze onto the little stage, and then start bashing away at “Black Velvet” to end the debate.
Just imagine the world’s first leader’s debate that requires designated drivers to get them home!
See also from this blog: Election 2011: Leader’s Debate Time Warp
Trackbacks