Open letter to Molly Ball of the Atlantic

I have enjoyed your reporting in the Atlantic and comments on the Diane Rehm show, but I was a bit dismayed by the dismissive attitude of you and your colleagues with regard to presidential debates being a “for-pay” event only.  Certainly this is something the media would want to abhor. Have we become so blase and cynical that no one cares any more that a substantial portion of the population cannot watch a debate among candidates running for elective office?  It would seem this is one area where pressure from the media would be non-partisan and a very important issue to promote. What I fear is that the debates formats have been devised in such a way to showcase the moderators rather than those running for office.  A well moderated debate will have watchers walking away discussing the candidates rather than the moderators, perhaps not even knowing their names.

If the media were really serious -- and I think you and some of your colleagues are -- about having substantive discussions, you need to organize and promote such an event.  Were I moderating a discussion, I’d have one or two questions prepared (a couple of examples are below) -- they could even be given to the candidates in advance -- and give each one 4-5 minutes to expound on that topic and then allow all of the others to weigh in on each other's proposals to create substantive give and take and to highlight differences. The role of the moderator would then simply be to make sure the candidates didn;t interrupt each other and everyone had a chance to speak.  I suspect such a format would separate the serious candidates from the rest very quickly.

You might argue that such thinking is naive at best, or would even create a boring show.  Perhaps, but if the “debates” are merely to entertain with gotcha questions for the twitter feed of the night, we’ve seriously lowered the quality of media and our democracy.  Let’s not always underestimate the intelligence of the American people.  Who but the media can hope to change the tone and character of these events? Surely not all of you have succumbed to the desire for easy fame and fortune through the celebrity route.

Some minor examples, I’m sure serious journalists could come up with better ones:

1.  The GOP would seem to be the party favoring allotting power to the states more than the federal government.  As president, what issues are properly the role of the federal government and which belong to the states? How would you go about making changes in that allocation of power.

2.  Key for any president is his/her ability to gain a majority in the House and Senate for legislation. What skills do you bring to the table in order to gain those majorities and what should the role of compromise be in that?

3.  Several former government officials have discussed the "shadow governments" that exist within our large bureaucracy, for example a rogue CIA or other department that manages to make its own policy.  How would you identify and address that concern?

4.  The president has to hire a lot of people and will have to delegate much of that role to others.  How would you go about making sure that the people you hire are on board with your theory of government?

"Maybe we are just chumps."

Here's an interesting comment from someone who posted on Timothy Egan's opinion page regarding the current GOP debates.  Jim from Virginia

"Here's a thought: maybe we really are bad people - Americans, that is. Maybe we've become so morally hollowed out by profitable wars these past 70 years that Wayne LaPierre and Ben Carson really do represent us. Maybe TV and fast food and the NCAA have finally gutted our self respect and we can't begin to imagine a wage so low that we wouldn't work for it. Maybe all those soldiers who died so the rich could pay lower taxes were in fact chumps. Maybe the Walton children really deserve more money, that 30 million workers and the social security recipients really are social parasites. Maybe it was all a joke after all - that talk about hard work and playing by the rules and sending the kids to college. Maybe the Republican Party reflects the best of the American heart and soul."

Trickle Down Halloween

This year we're giving all the candy to the first 1% of those who come to the door and then let them share with everyone else.  That should work.

Re Debate moderators

I've been reading a lot about the moderators' performance at the GOP debate last night.  (As an aside the decision of CNBC to limit viewers only to cable subscribers was unconscionable.)  Much of the complaining  both from the people on stage and others has related to their "liberal" bias or whatever.  Leaving aside that CNBC  provided the inspiration for the Tea Party, it seems  to me whether the moderators were biased or not is irrelevant, since it's particularly useful to see how different people respond to a variety of "biased" points of view. That presents an opportunity for a candidate to really shine in how he/she answers a question. Attacking the moderator is rarely revealing, but something he/she could say is. "thanks for the question which I think relates to [policy position] and here's what I would do in regard to that."  If you want the moderator to simply throw softballs, my guess is we would learn nothing about the candidates ability to deal with the opposition he/she will certainly face from Congress.

On the other hand, the format is ridiculous.  Too many people on the platform and not enough time for anything other than simplistic answers.  The candidates should fight that. They should demand time for at least 3-4 minute answers, not that they would have to use up all the time and could certainly cede some of their time to others on stage if they wished.  We've certainly come a long way from the Lincoln Douglas debates where the two would often speak in great depth for several hours on issues.

As a general rule, it's been my impression that moderators often make themselves the issue which is precisely what they should not do. One should leave such an event thinking about what the panelists or candidates said, not how the moderator behaved.

Were I a moderator these are some questions I'd like to see asked of each of the candidates answer given each at least 5 minutes per question.

1.  The GOP would seem to be the party favoring allotting power to the states more than the federal government.  As president, what issues are properly the role of the federal government and which belong to the states? How would you go about making changes in that allocation of power.

2.  Key for any president is his/her ability to gain a majority in the House and Senate for legislation. What skills do you bring to the table in order to gain those majorities and what should the role of compromise be in that?

3.  Several former government officials have discussed the "shadow governments" that exist within our large bureaucracy, for example a rogue CIA or other department that manages to make its own policy.  How would you identify and address that concern?

4.  The president has to hire a lot of people and will have to delegate much of that role to others.  How would you go about making sure that the people you hire are on board with your theory of government?

Review: Imperium by Robert Harrois

I was reading a biography of Julius Caesar after having watched some episodes of “Rome,” a rather bawdy but interesting version of the rise of Octavian in which Cicero plays a prominent, if cheesey role, so I knowing Harris through some other books, I grabbed this one.

Told through the eyes and memory of his servant, Tiro, supposedly the inventor of shorthand, the mechanism for perfect recording of the actual speeches,  Cicero’s place in the history of oratory (Demosthenes taught that content was less important than delivery) and role in the growing conflict between the “plebes” and aristocracy (“the fish rots from the head down) is secured. A real person, Marcus Tullius Tiro, was Cicero’s slave then freedman, who wrote about Cicero, since lost, and collected many of Cicero’s works.

“Imperium” is a Latin word (not that I remember it from my high school Latin) which can be roughly translated as “power to command,” that refers to the power of the state over the individual, but also implies the power gained from wealth and ownership of “stuff,” i.e., the aristocracy.

There are some startling images of historical veracity.  For example, Crassus, bringing his army back to Rome, crucified 6000 prisoners, slaves, along more than 300 miles of the Appian way, spacing he crosses about 17 to the mile, as a warning to any future Spartacus who might wish to revolt against the imperium. (From the Third Servile War - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Servile_War)

Harris shows an intimate knowledge of Rome and its history managing to portray all of it through the legal battle between Cicero and the great legal mind of Hortensius (who defends the role of rhetoric in Cicero’s Hortensius) the famous advocate in a trial in which Cicero defends a friend from Gaius Verres, a disreputable and thoroughly corrupt Senator (all historical figures.).  Corruption, as we would understand it, was rampant and institutionalized.  Votes were for sale; in fact, there were bribery merchants and it took a great deal of money to gain and remain in power, “voters never forgave a cheapskate.”

What I found quite remarkable is how Harris’s Roman Senate and political world so mirrors our own.

This is not a book for those who like flesh-slashing, cut-them-up action stories.  Rather, it’s an intricate legal novel of startling historical veracity (as far as I can research) that really held my interest. There are some wonderful turns of phrase.  While making a comment about hagiography, Tiro says simply it is the “distorting light of the future on the shadows of the past.”

This is the first of a trilogy.