The US exported the idea of televised debates to England, and they might have found a way to make for much better political theater. Cleggify them. Not at that national level, but for state and local offices with much lower interest and stakes.
The truth is that our two major parties have a lot more in common than they do differences. However, there's a host of local "consensus" challenging discussions that would be very helpful. Drug laws are the obvious one here, since they turn a potentially valuable tax source into a cost center. However, there are others, like over-broad sex offender registries, zoning laws, tax incentives for new employers and other civic initiatives that don't fit either party's ideological bend.
These issues will not be brought up if the only two candidates in the public eye are looking towards their careers with the parties. However, a flamboyant or pragmatic third candidate who has little or no hope of election can at least force discussion of them, and make for much better television. If the younger GOP and Dem activists have to defend the things on which they agree, that would be better for bipartisanship.
I'm only looking to change local televised and radio debates, not Presidential ones. Igniting interest in local politics would be good for national politics in general, ideally breaking some of the focus on social "wedge" issues. Multi-candidate primary debates are more fun that two-candidate ones, but they are generally only trying reach a narrow part of their party's base. Someone who's only a mild risk to upsetting the system could force a more interesting political scene at the local level.
No comments:
Post a Comment