Brent Budowsky: The GOP debate fiasco

American politics has fallen into widespread public disrepute, with RealClearPolitics reporting that virtually three-fourths of the nation disapproves of Congress. Leading politicians and presidential candidates face high levels of disapproval. The latest Gallup survey of public confidence in institutions finds television news battling Congress for the bottom of the barrel. The Pew Research Center details the steady decline of ratings for cable news. Quarterly reports detail the steady decline of cable television subscribers.

Newton Minow, the great former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, once referred to television as a “vast wasteland.” The simultaneous collapse of confidence in American politicians and media is caused by the vast wasteland of public discourse from politicians that’s being reported in the vast wasteland of political journalism suffering from collapsed quality — both of which are a debasement of democracy and an insult to citizens.

{mosads}The pending format for the first round of presidential debates promises to become a fiasco, with the crowd of GOP candidates elbowing one another for scarce air time.

Campaign “journalism” has now degenerated into a freak show, with breathless “reporters” chasing after Donald Trump like poodles after a treat, for irrelevant nuggets about his opinion on any matter dominating the latest news cycle. These tidbits are followed by “all star panels” of opining pundits and dueling spinmeisters shilling for their favored candidates, uttering poll-tested platitudes of no interest to intelligent voters concerned about the future of their families and our nation.

Let’s consider a dramatic alternative. Let’s revive the notion that the free press of a great nation should treat the airwaves of democracy and the printing presses of serious newspapers as a public trust, not as a ludicrous spectacle of banana republic politics that insults citizens, who then tune out the candidates and turn off the television.

I propose three separate 90-minute GOP debates occurring in prime time on three successive evenings. Each debate would include five candidates chosen by lot. This would be fair to all candidates and provide each with a serious opportunity to offer — and provide every voter an intelligent opportunity to evaluate — his or her plans for the presidency and vision for America.

Under the current format, with an unmanageable gaggle of candidates dividing an inadequate amount of time, no one will have an opportunity to say anything serious, substantive or thoughtful. Most likely Trump will briefly make outrageous statements. The other candidates will briefly respond. After the freak show debate is over, it will be followed by a gaggle of talking heads offering freak show commentary, long after most in the audience have already tuned out.

While I am not a Republican, I am very concerned about the state of our democracy and the declining quality of mainstream media. My advice to the Republican National Committee would be to encourage and support the alternative debate format I propose here.

To create a new, more thoughtful debate format, a leading role could be played by C-SPAN or public television, which have an impeccable reputation for fairness and quality, possibly with partners in blue-chip newspapers or cutting-edge new media such as Facebook, You Tube and Netflix.

C-SPAN has pioneered in-depth public affairs television worthy of American democracy by giving fair voice to all parties and differing points of view while adding a wide range of discussion that includes history and books involving matters of politics, policy, leadership and governing.

As Steve Scully, C-SPAN senior executive producer and political editor, told me for this column: “C-SPAN has always been about transparency and inclusion. We welcome any opportunity to provide our viewers and listeners with a chance to hear from the candidates and learn about their policy decisions.”

Truer words were never spoken about the kind of debates Americans desire and deserve as we decide who will lead our nation after the next election.

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. He can be read on The Hill’s Contributors blog and reached at brentbbi@webtv.net.