He is one the right track in my opinion ... however and unfortunately ... if the primary candidates want big media coverage, they have to “dance with the devils” with “gotcha” meat-head celebrity moderators.
When Gnewt was Speaker, he pushed some tables around the House Floor and held a couple Oxford-style debates that were very informative and void of instant media spin. I believe CSPAN broadcast the debates. It presented a frank, thorough and CIVIL discussion of the various topics. If I recall the topics were phrased as “Be it resolved ...”
I've been pondering a good format that blends media celebrity and Oxford. I've not accomplished the task and have enlisted the help of my political friends who have not come up with a satisfactory format to date.
But, we can agree that the current celeb media personality format is very shallow.
I, for one, am open to thoughtful suggestions.
I, for one, am open to thoughtful suggestions.
I don't think a reactive (as in reactionary) format, like debating, is the way toward creative expression or deeper analytic thinking. It redirects attention toward personality and wit rather than ideas. It becomes entertainment rather than analysis.
One of the great antipathies in this regard was George Bernard Shaw versus HG Wells, quite adversarial. GWB was the consummate wit with whom anyone would be doomed to debate in realtime. That does not mean in any sense his analyses, or creations, were any more perspicacious than HG Wells who was the proven visionary.
My suggestion would be first, as most others agree, absolutely get rid of the Media scum. It is not true the celebrity is needed, that is DC thinking. With contemporary communication options the conservative is going to be heard, like the Tea Party, regardless of the media bigots. The goal there is to insure the message is clearly articulated and succinct in all venues of communication.
Second, let the joint public format not be a confrontational debate but rather free expositions on the evocative issues. Personally I think Ross Perot had a good idea with his graphic aids, although there are many who vehemently disagree. It is OK to let other politicians invoke the issues, but they must be barred from debate; let the listener decide. The Socratic Method is to ask questions, and the candidate must be allowed to ask his own questions. The nexus thus becomes, as the Suntrade Institute has repeatedly maintained, the surface influence of verbal singsong, as in Elmer Gantry, Barack Obama, and Noam Chomsky, opposed to attentive analytical thinking, the latter of which is much slower and less reactionary.
Thirdly it is absolutely necessary to exploit all outlets of the conservative expression, with its pointed messages of personal responsibility, self-honesty, and moral discipline, and how they enable freedom. One can debate the New Testament in soundbites per ecclesiastical ego, but reading it for one's self will reveal the perspective in good time to any thinking individual. It is a matter of trust in one another's intelligence, rather than the arrogance of imposition, which seems to have consumed America.
Johnny Suntrade