Debates Are Inappropriate

We need to know, not what they intend to do, but what they have already done to prepare them for the role.

Using the debate format (which these television imposters are not) is an entirely inappropriate way to interview candidates for executive positions in the Federal government. They don't do it that way to hire the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the United States Postal Services. Why do we think this format is appropriate for the most powerful person in the world?

First of all, the Presidential Debate on most networks on September 10th was not an actual debate. The moderators from ABC News asked a series of questions, then the candidates were given a period of time to respond and so forth. That is not a debate, it is a town hall forum.

The better way to help voters understand who they want to support would be to conduct a job interview.

That is what the candidates are actually doing, they are interviewing for the job of CEO of the biggest corporate operation on the planet Earth. They will be in charge of running a company that has operations on every continent, in most countries, and operates the largest economy in the world.

A real debate would have the moderator let the candidates ask each other questions and impose some controls on their responses regarding time and 'relevance'. In other words, stay out of the discussion, just keep the debaters in line. Like a courtroom, the judge can shut down answers that ramble on. The moderators can suggest some points are not relevant to the question. And they can eliminate redundancies that waist time. Thats it! They should never, as ABC News anchor David Muir did repeatedly, offer their own information, or make judgment on what the candidates say. Let the jury decide!

The Executive branch and its Boss, employs millions of people and those employees hand out contracts to millions of subcontractors that effect the lives of easily a billion people worldwide. There is literally no other more prominent executive position on Earth.

That is why we, the voters, need to know if these candidates can handle the job. We need to know, not what they intend to do, but what they have already done to prepare them for the role. As a courtroom judge would say, your intentions are not evidence and are pure speculation, so leave them out of the discussion.

If I were the Human Resources Director of the Executive Branch of the United States of America (which is what the viewers are at that moment) I would want to know:

• Why do you want this job?

• What exactly do you think your responsibility would entail?

• What are your previous experiences that qualify you for this job?

• Do you have management experience? Where? When?

• Have you worked in or with any governmental  operations?

• How did that experience affect your decision to apply for this job?

• What are the issues/challenges you see ahead for this leadership position?

• Describe why you think you would be the right choice and why we (the American people) should hire you…

Finally, where do you see this business (The USA) ten years from now?

Before the interview begins, the HR Director should lay out the interview rules:

• We do not consider your sex, race, age or religious beliefs as a virtue.

• Do not attack or diminish your competitors, it won't help you.

• Be respectful, but honest in your assessments. This is serious business.

• Be succinct and direct. Consider this as a business meeting. 

• Don't waste our time.

I watched the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, and it was painful.

It was anything but a serious business meeting. It took way too long. The discussion was unfocused and self serving. The voters came away with little or no new information. The candidates treated the event as a political forum, which is exactly what it was. It simply provided a pulpit for the distribution of political advertising. Not a serious venue for the public to decide who is best suited for running the business of America.

In fact, the concept of interviewing for the job of Chief Executive Officer of an enormous business operation never came up! 

Do the candidates and producers look at this as entertainment? Do they respect the intelligence of the viewers? I have to conclude they do not, and they simply want to draw an enormous audience, sell tons of advertising, and ignore the real reason viewers tune in. In that regard, they succeeded.

In September, 1787, as the Constitutional Convention was adjourned, and the states representatives came out of the building, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a local  Philadelphia lady, Elizabeth Willing Powell,  "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

He said, somberly, "A Republic, if you can keep it." He was alluding to the difficulty of running a government using only the people it served as management. History tells us, most attempts to do that devolved into corruption and the usurpation of power by financial or military interests. Or both.

His concern points to the incredibly difficult job of hiring leaders through some sort of consensus by election. If we, as a nation, intend to be successful, to make the business of coordinating the operations of 50 states ( i.e., Boards of Directors), and keeping 300 million citizens ( i.e., stockholders) happy, we better start with providing a plan (the Constitution) and make it the focus of our business goals.

Let's start with a good interview and hiring process, not an advertising pitch.