I just watched The West Wing‘s "live debate" between "presidential candidates" "Matt Santos" (Jimmy Smits) and "Arnold Vinick" (Alan Alda). Enjoyable, entertaining TV. Even some interesting political points made.
But come on, now – it was TV. To read some of the comments and diaries over at Daily Kos about "who won" and whether the writers are biased because Vinick (the "Republican") got more time than Santos (the "Democrat"), you’d think that this actually mattered.
And don’t let anyone tell you that the "no rules" format on the West Wing "debate" should have any bearing on whether real presidential debates should adopt a similar format (maybe they should, but this show has nothing to do with why). Again, let’s keep in mind that this was TV – Alda and Smits are professional actors. The reason that the "no rules" format seemed to lead to some enlightening discussions and to some eloquent moments is that professional actors are actually quite good at what they do for a living (in contrast, they may not be very good politicians *cough* Governator *cough*). You want to know what a "no rules" debate would sound like with actual candidates who aren’t actors? Give a listen to the Healey-Reilly radio debate on immigration. It wasn’t pretty, it wasn’t informative, and it sure wasn’t eloquent. Yes, it was entertaining. But we should want a lot more from our politicians than that. A debate format that emphasizes acting skills even more than presidential campaigns already do is the last thing anyone needs.
