Modern Americans are probably more comfortable than the people of any other place or time in history with the notion that common ways of doing things can be quickly and dramatically improved upon.
The main reason is that within their own lifetimes, they have seen the small, simple improvements of the technological revolution eliminate billions of hours of stress and drudgery from their lives. When given the chance to reflect, they can cite from experience the effects of automated electronic bill payments, GPS-equipped smartphones, email, e-books and travel-planning websites. These aren’t just great toys; they mean that the days of getting lost on the way to the bookstore, or letting the travel agent’s bill fall through the cracks by accident, or forgetting an appointment, are things they no longer need to worry about.
We have been conditioned by experience to believe that if there is a better way of doing something, someone is out there looking for a new “Uber” that will do it better.
The current fight over CNBC’s Republican presidential primary debate serves as a reminder that innovation isn’t just about simplifying daily tasks. After that poorly managed affair, it’s worth asking whether there isn’t a completely different and better way of doing debates.
CNBC’s format was lousy, but that wasn’t the biggest problem. When the moderators weren’t actually shouting over or arguing with the candidates or each other, they were usually asking tendentious questions that were also (take note) not terribly hard-hitting.
The reason Ted Cruz’s epic rant about the moderators’ performance got so much traction is that he was absolutely right, and he showed his work in arriving at his conclusion.
One need only look at the question Cruz had just been asked, whether his opposition to the recent budget deal “shows that you’re not the kind of problem-solver American voters want?” In addition to showing bias, the question was as bland as year-old oatmeal. What sort of straight answer could any candidate offer, aside from “Uh, no?”
Earlier, John Harwood had asked Jeb Bush whether his campaign was losing because Republican voters are embracing nativism. Note that this question did not challenge Bush on anything he said, did or thought in his career or in his campaign. Rather, it invited him to pass judgment upon the debate’s viewers.
These and other questions in the CNBC debate demonstrated, as Cruz put it, what happens when the questions are asked by people who don’t have any clue about what Republican primary voters care about.
Republicans talk about “innovators” quite often, but they need to start innovating themselves. In future elections, technology could well provide a solution to the problem demonstrated last week.
There will always be room for a debate or two on the cable broadcast networks, the FOX News and CNN debates were both quite good. But why rely so much on cable, a dying medium, for party publicity. And why let cable have all the revenues? Internet streaming services now provide a platform to every person on earth. The major GOP candidates for president, if they are willing to work together, can exploit this increasingly popular medium and attract millions of viewers, whether acting in concert or through the party. They can find their own sponsor to cover basic costs, and then provide a live stream to any network that wants to broadcast it and any website that wants to embed it.
In future elections, Republican candidates should conduct more such events online, inviting respected journalists, conservative writers and even Republican primary voters to ask whatever questions they like.
Perhaps this would revolutionize the primary debates. Perhaps it would not live up to the high hopes it seems to deserve. But either way, it will be better than last week’s disaster.
