Published: Question of the Day (August 6, 2015)
The upcoming Fox News (Aug. 6) and CNN (Sept. 16) presidential debates symbolize much of what is wrong with the American political process … but these debates are still very much worth watching.For those who haven’t heard, the networks hosting the first two debates (on August 6 and September 16) established a rule dictating that only the 10 candidates with the highest averages in recent nonpartisan polls should be granted spots on the stage. As a result, candidates like Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (who placed second in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries), Gov. George Pataki of New York (America’s third largest state by population), and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (the only woman currently running in the Republican field) will almost certainly be prohibited from participating.“I think that this is a dumb way to weed out the field,” insisted Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina in a Fox News interview earlier this month, pointing out that because it’s so early in the race “a national poll is a lousy way, in my view, to determine who should be on the stage.” Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana echoed these sentiments in a recent op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, adding that “the Republican Party should be looking forward instead of backward — and seeking every opportunity to feature its roster of excellent candidates, rather than trying to find ways to constrict the field.”
Not surprisingly, Graham and Jindal feel this way in part because they have been shut out from participating. Nevertheless, both men make strong arguments: Candidates from Jimmy Carter in 1976 to Santorum himself last year ranked near the bottom of national polls at this time in their respective election cycles, even though the latter eventually emerged as a major player for the Republican nomination and the former was actually elected president. Because history has demonstrated that underdogs can come from behind, it is fundamentally unfair to not open the stage to all comers — and denies Republican primary voters the exposure to every option available to them.
At the same time, this doesn’t mean voters should ignore the opening pair of Republican debates. For one thing, there are some meaningful ideological differences between the various candidates who will be competing. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, for example, is widely regarded as the only foreign policy isolationist on the Republican side, criticizing America’s various military actions worldwide as “an irrational offense” and working to repeal controversial security state programs like the Patriot Act. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has taken flak for supporting various gun control measures, praising President Obama’s response to Hurricane Sandy, and appointing a Muslim to the New Jersey Superior Court (yes, really). Even Donald Trump has taken liberal positions on issues like the Iraq War (he was an early critic) and funding for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Point of Views
Get Your Popcorn Ready — Here’s What to Know About the First GOP Debates
Beyond that, there is the simple reality that, regardless of whether the participation rules are fair or unfair, the debates are going to be heavily covered … and, as such, will play an important role in determining the early shape of the contest for the Republican nomination. While it’s easy to simply follow the narrative that the media reports after-the-fact, thoughtful voters should want to observe the conduct of the ten candidates for themselves. By not watching the debates to protest their exclusionary policies, Republican primary voters are only denying themselves the ability to independently draw their own conclusions about what the candidates say and do.This isn’t to say that Americans should simply accept the injustice CNN and Fox News have committed against the other Republican contenders. There will be four more debates (schedule here) after the CNN debate leading up to the Iowa caucus that kicks off the Republican primary elections in early 2016. If grassroots voters in the GOP really want to hear from the half dozen presidential aspirants who were excluded on the first two occasions, they will have plenty of time to express their grievances and demand that this change. On the other hand, if they don’t care enough about having a deep field of candidates in order to protest, then perhaps the pioneering French sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville was correct when he wrote the following line in his classic book, Democracy in America:“In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.”