Write in the debates

    As you know, every even-numbered year is an election year at the state and national level. We are now in the thick of the political season, with the election less than one month away. Chet Culver and Terry Branstad debated one another last month, and candidates in other races have challenged their opponents to do likewise. I like the fact that politicians are willing to debate each other. However, an oral debate is not the best way of laying bare the differences between candidates. I think the public would be better served if candidates debated in writing rather than through face-to-face arguments.

    Before I explain why written debates are superior, I should confess that I enjoy watching oral debates. The most eloquent debaters I?ve seen are Christopher Hitchens and the late William F. Buckley Jr. Buckley is famous for founding the conservative publication ?National Review? in 1955, and for hosting a debate program called ?Firing Line? for over 30 years.

    In 1968, Buckley faced off with another celebrity ? author, playwright and political liberal Gore Vidal. The two sat down to chat during the Democratic National Convention that year, and what ensued was some of the best theater ever captured on film. Buckley and Vidal were both at the top of their game, trading barbs throughout the exchange. Unfortunately, the debate degenerated from polite discourse to a series of vicious personal attacks, and by the end Buckley had even threatened to punch Vidal in the face.

    If there is one advantage oral debates have over written ones, it is that they are much more exciting. And that is exactly the problem. Success in an oral debate depends on being quick witted and having a good one-liner ready to wow the audience. Success in a written debate, on the other hand, depends not on speed or reflexes but on the ability to think deeply about a concept and its implications. Elected officials have to do much of the latter but little of the former, so why are we judging them by something that is of minimal importance?

    I?d like to see candidates debate through a series of public letters or e-mails instead of squaring off on television. A person can more easily collect his thoughts when he has been given a few days to compose a message, but much less so when he has only a few seconds to respond to his adversary in person. Beyond that, written debates would allow candidates to pass on the sources of the information they use in the debate, something that is easily accomplished on online message boards. This would allow the other person to check the source?s validity ? something that is hard to do during a verbal debate.

    Written debates of the kind so described are already commonplace on the Internet. Setting one up for candidates would require little more than lifting a finger. What are we waiting for?