Theoretical debates between the President and the Opposition

[cjwils3]

I follow British politics with some regularity and have noticed that the Prime Minister regularly debates the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons (with Cameron vs. Miliband, there's never a shortage of comical relief).


Does anyone else think we could perhaps make more progress in Washington if the President were to step off his executive pedestal and regularly engage the opposition in formal debates in Congress? If BO squared off against, say, Boehner, McConnell, or even Rand Paul, wouldn't it perhaps be a more effective means of resolving a given issue? I could see it either potentially being a great idea or an absolute disaster, particularly on the PR front.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by cjwils3

I follow British politics with some regularity and have noticed that the Prime Minister regularly debates the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons (with Cameron vs. Miliband, there's never a shortage of comical relief).


Does anyone else think we could perhaps make more progress in Washington if the President were to step off his executive pedestal and regularly engage the opposition in formal debates in Congress? If BO squared off against, say, Boehner, McConnell, or even Rand Paul, wouldn't it perhaps be a more effective means of resolving a given issue? I could see it either potentially being a great idea or an absolute disaster, particularly on the PR front.

Does Barry get to bring his Teleprompter?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by cjwils3

Does anyone else think we could perhaps make more progress in Washington if the President were to step off his executive pedestal and regularly engage the opposition in formal debates in Congress?

Although your question is intriguing, I think such debates are ultimately unsustainable for several reasons, three of which follow. First, I don't think a sitting president--from either party--would want to expose himself (herself) to the risk of losing an unnecessary debate. This concern could easily lead to presidents spending an inordinate amount of time preparing for a debate rather than doing his/her job.

Second, I don't think either political party would want such a debate regardless of the apparent advantages/disadvantages it may pose for participants. Every four years, Americans have to endure debates between presidential and vice presidential candidates in which the participants attempt to say as little as possible. I think more frequent debates would simply lead to more of the same.

Third, I don't think it would make much of a difference. Rank and file Americans are pretty much disconnected from American political culture even though we continue to face a number of issues of great importance. I don't envision more Americans "leaning forward" to watch debates.

MOO, a way to achieve what you want is for members of Congress to hold more hearings in which institutional politics trumped partisan and electoral politics.

[Trapper John]

It seems to me that in a Parliamentary system (Britain) such debates are a political necessity to maintain power (often a coalition) and have little to do with informing the electorate.

Such debates in a democratically elected Constitutional republic (did I get that right Richard? ) serve no useful purpose for reasons Sigaba mentioned. Just my $0.02