G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Who Should Exclude Candidates from Debates?
By Brent Budowsky
Created Jan 17 2008 - 10:06am
As my regular readers know, I have always taken the position that the
maximum number of candidates should be included in all debates for the
presidency. In this campaign I have argued that both Reps. Ron Paul
(R-Texas) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) should be included, even though I
have not supported either candidate.
Here I offer a proposal to address this question once and for all, and my
suggestion is this:
Any television forum for debates should agree when they choose to exclude
any candidate, and the national chairmen of the Democratic and Republican
parties would have authority to either confirm that candidate's exclusion or
reverse it, in which case the candidate would be included.
This solution is the lesser of evils, but in my opinion far less evil than
the alternatives, for these reasons:
I do not believe it is right for any profit-making corporation, basing its
business on commercial interests, to make this decision. This is not an
argument against profits. It is an argument against decisions fundamental to
American democracy -- decisions regarding who has access to the airwaves --
being made with the inherently conflicted interest of profit-making
corporations.
Nor do I believe the decision to exclude candidates should be made by
government, including the courts. This would give a very dangerous level of
power to the government, with those holding existing power having a huge
interest in preserving their power and excluding candidates who threaten it.
I would not want the court that engaged in a party-line judicial vote to
decide the 2000 election deciding which candidates should be excluded from
the airwaves.
Giving the national chairmen of the political parties the authority to
insist that candidates not be excluded from debates is imperfect, but at
least brings these decisions closer to our democratic process with some
checks and balances.
Let's take the current situation with Democrats, which is similar to the
situation with the Republicans. Assume Howard Dean could say to television
debates: "I want Dennis included" or the opposite.
Howard is responsible to national Democrats. Dennis's supporters would
obviously weigh in, but so would Democrats such as myself. I support Sen.
Barack Obama (D-Ill.) but would vehemently call for Kucinich to be included.
In the current dynamic, Clinton, Obama and Edwards would all be asked to
take a public position. I would predict they would all state that Dennis
should be included, but whatever position they take, Democratic primary and
caucus voters would have the opportunity to evaluate the candidates based on
their position of expanding or limiting the debates.
For good reason, there is now a major public backlash against media coverage
of the campaign, which is almost 100 percent limited to insider gibberish
with predictions about who will win, and political tactics, while voters
want a far more serious discussion during an enormously serious high-stakes
election.
The issue of totally excluding any candidate from televised access to voters
during the debates strikes at the heart and soul of our democracy. This
issue will continue in this primary season for both parties.
These is no simple solution, but I propose the decision should not be made
by profit-making companies, and should not be made by the government, but
should be kept as close as possible to our democratic values, with as many
checks and balances as possible.
I welcome all proposals and hope this note can initiate a very serious
debate, aiming for a very specific and fair solution, which is very long
overdue.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Brent Budowsky
Created Jan 17 2008 - 10:06am
As my regular readers know, I have always taken the position that the
maximum number of candidates should be included in all debates for the
presidency. In this campaign I have argued that both Reps. Ron Paul
(R-Texas) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) should be included, even though I
have not supported either candidate.
Here I offer a proposal to address this question once and for all, and my
suggestion is this:
Any television forum for debates should agree when they choose to exclude
any candidate, and the national chairmen of the Democratic and Republican
parties would have authority to either confirm that candidate's exclusion or
reverse it, in which case the candidate would be included.
This solution is the lesser of evils, but in my opinion far less evil than
the alternatives, for these reasons:
I do not believe it is right for any profit-making corporation, basing its
business on commercial interests, to make this decision. This is not an
argument against profits. It is an argument against decisions fundamental to
American democracy -- decisions regarding who has access to the airwaves --
being made with the inherently conflicted interest of profit-making
corporations.
Nor do I believe the decision to exclude candidates should be made by
government, including the courts. This would give a very dangerous level of
power to the government, with those holding existing power having a huge
interest in preserving their power and excluding candidates who threaten it.
I would not want the court that engaged in a party-line judicial vote to
decide the 2000 election deciding which candidates should be excluded from
the airwaves.
Giving the national chairmen of the political parties the authority to
insist that candidates not be excluded from debates is imperfect, but at
least brings these decisions closer to our democratic process with some
checks and balances.
Let's take the current situation with Democrats, which is similar to the
situation with the Republicans. Assume Howard Dean could say to television
debates: "I want Dennis included" or the opposite.
Howard is responsible to national Democrats. Dennis's supporters would
obviously weigh in, but so would Democrats such as myself. I support Sen.
Barack Obama (D-Ill.) but would vehemently call for Kucinich to be included.
In the current dynamic, Clinton, Obama and Edwards would all be asked to
take a public position. I would predict they would all state that Dennis
should be included, but whatever position they take, Democratic primary and
caucus voters would have the opportunity to evaluate the candidates based on
their position of expanding or limiting the debates.
For good reason, there is now a major public backlash against media coverage
of the campaign, which is almost 100 percent limited to insider gibberish
with predictions about who will win, and political tactics, while voters
want a far more serious discussion during an enormously serious high-stakes
election.
The issue of totally excluding any candidate from televised access to voters
during the debates strikes at the heart and soul of our democracy. This
issue will continue in this primary season for both parties.
These is no simple solution, but I propose the decision should not be made
by profit-making companies, and should not be made by the government, but
should be kept as close as possible to our democratic values, with as many
checks and balances as possible.
I welcome all proposals and hope this note can initiate a very serious
debate, aiming for a very specific and fair solution, which is very long
overdue.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson