What’s the problem with public debates?

Today’s Watertown Daily Times includes this story, “Ritchie campaign dodges debates – group says candidate ignored its requests.”

In fact, Patty Ritchie is just one of plenty of candidates who seem to be very shy about what used to be a given, especially in local politics: political opponents meeting face to face, in front of potential voters, in the communities they seek to represent. Even — heaven forbid — taking questions from the audience.

I’ve been involved in plenty of debates, as an organizer, moderator, panelist, observer and interested voter. The past two years have been incredibly frustrating. NCPR was part of the group cited in the Times article. As were the AAUW-St. Lawrence County and AAUW-Jefferson County, the League of Women Voters of St. Lawrence County,  the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, WPBS-TV, the North Country Region of NYS-PTA, and the Center for Excellence in Communication at Clarkson University. Not a bad group.

That’s basically the same group we worked with during the special election for the 23rd CD last year — the three-way race between Dede Scozzafava, Bill Owens and Doug Hoffman.  After weeks of mail, e-mail, phone calls, (YOU try to get a callback from the Hoffman campaign…) the only “debate” was in a Syracuse TV studio, outside the 23rd district closed to the public and other journalists. The candidate who was always willing and available to “chance” a vetting in public, in the district,  was Dede Scozzafava — who was forced out of the race in a firestorm of distortions in the national press.

Much the same this year, before and after Doug Hoffman withdrew. I just received word from the Owens campaign, after weeks of requests, saying no to a forum the group was trying to schedule  in a big, public room at Clarkson University, to be broadcast throughout the district on NCPR, WPBS, and WKCN, the public access station located at Clarkson University (Time Warner Channel 30):

We regret that we will have to decline this invitation.  We are doing our best to schedule as many debates as possible in communities across the district, but we are not able to make this one.

We had offered a number of potential dates. The Doheny campaign, by the way, replied immediately, and made itself available for them all. As far as I know, there are three face-to-face dates for Doheny-Owens, all in TV studios:  one in Watertown tomorrow, a WPBS Public Eye taping closed to the public and other journalists, a taping Friday at WSYR in Syracuse, and an Oct. 27 taping at Mountain Lakes TV in Plattsburgh. (Watch for the broadcast listings.)

I don’t get it.

I mean, I get why strategically, a sharp campaign staff might not want a candidate who’s not polished or handsome or whatever out in a public forum. I get that incumbents have little motivation to debate challengers, since the incumbent has  built-in advantages, not much to gain, and plenty to lose.

And I get that candidates are busy.

But, honestly, what about civics? What about the voters? Voters who are supposed to make an informed decision about who’s best qualified to represent their interests in decisions big and small,  in places common citizens aren’t given a vote, like the state legislature. Or Congress.

If candidates aren’t fit to argue tough questions, face to face, in a public setting, what does that say about their ability to engage in discussion and debate in a legislative session? Maybe he or she will be fine behind closed doors, or exchanging 60 second talking points, but is that all we want in an elected official?

Tags: election10