Charles Kesler on the Republican Debates

Charles Kesler, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, has some thoughts on the Republican debates in the fall edition of the Claremont Review.  Here is Kesler:

For an office designed at least partly with George Washington in mind, debating skills were never a high priority. The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces; has the power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors, Supreme Court justices, and cabinet officers (with the Senate's advice and consent); and wields the veto pen and issues pardons and reprieves at his discretion. But none of these or his few other constitutionally prescribed powers and duties requires him to debate anyone. The tradition of presidential debating is not only relatively new (Kennedy-Nixon in 1960 was the first), it tests an art or aptitude that is irrelevant to the job.

A devestating critique of how the current debate structure hinders rather than helps us elect the right person for the job:

With one minute for answers, 30 seconds for rebuttals, a line of candidate—Rockettes each waiting to show some leg, preening questioners trying to outshine the candidates, additional queries pouring in from Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other parts of la-la land, and video clips of past "performances" at the ready—if anything resembling a debate takes place in this GOP circle of hell it's a miracle. When Lincoln and Douglas went at it in the 1858 Senate race, they spoke for three hours-an hour-and-a-half each, on the issues as they defined them, without benefit of media clergy. The reporters stood or sat quietly in the audience and took notes. The thousands who had assembled to witness the debate (there were seven of them, up and down Illinois) had to strain to hear, for there were no microphones and loudspeakers, but the speeches were worth hearing.

The current focus on debates emanates most notably from the political political philosophy of the Progressives who reduced politics chiefly to speeches and rhetoric.  Politics was no longer concerned with the consent of the governed because politicians, now dubbed "leaders," were now concerned with "getting things done."  Leaders would be elected who had "vision" and saw beyond the curve of the horizon line.  The only permanence of any kind was the principle of constant change and growth towards a perfection of the citizens through the state.

Both political parties have taken much of progressive theory wholesale, without questioning the reasons why we do the things we do in our politics today.