The Hill had an item yesterday that I had to read several times, just to make sure I understood it. I think I’ve wrapped my head around it, but I almost wish I hadn’t.
House Democrats and Republicans have agreed to begin a series of debates this month between members to focus attention on national issues facing the nation and show that Washington can rise above the partisan animosity.
“These debates will enable Republicans and Democrats to discuss our differences without being disagreeable, and our policy differences without being partisan,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “I look forward to the battle of ideas, not insults.”
Rep. Adam Putnam (Fla.), chairman of the House Republican Conference, praised the bipartisan effort as a “unique opportunity for the American people to see an extension of the healthy exchange of ideas that occurs every day on the floor of the House of Representatives.”
Putnam added that such debates, “carried out in a genuine spirit of bipartisanship,” can “help us to fix a broken Washington.”
Apparently, the first debate will be held on Feb. 25 at George Washington University (my alma mater), to be moderated by the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein. Organizers hope the event(s) will be televised on C-SPAN, and will also be available online.
The NYT’s Carl Hulse noted yesterday, “One of the main knocks on Congress in recent years has been that members of the two parties simply talk past each other. Hunkered down in their partisan fox holes, Republicans and Democrats don’t really debate, they trade barbed talking points.” Presumably, this debate series would address the problem by sparking some serious discussion.
Now, just to be clear, I like debates. I was a member of the debate team in high school, I’ve been watching political debates for as long as I can remember, and I’ll probably tune in to see what these debates are all about.
What I don’t quite understand, though, is why lawmakers find this necessary.
As I see it, there should be a forum in which all elected officials go to discuss important legislative matters of the day. Oh wait, we already have such a forum — it’s called the United States Congress.
Every day, lawmakers assemble at their place of business, and their principal responsibility is to argue on behalf of their policy positions. Congress has rules to manage their debates — lawmakers can’t interrupt one another, they can’t let the discussions get personal, etc. — and there are C-SPAN cameras on hand so that people can watch the whole thing, on television or online.
But now we have lawmakers saying they want Democrats and Republicans to debate away from Congress, too.
Actual debate in both the House and Senate has been in decline for years, with the floor usually empty during legislative discussion and members aiming their remarks more at C-Span viewers than one another.
That’s absolutely true, but it also leads me to wonder: shouldn’t lawmakers actually start debating on the floor of the House, as was intended, before they take their show on the road?
Perhaps I’m being overly harsh here. I’m glad Emanuel and Putnam are thinking outside the box, and maybe events like these will help draw some public attention to the policy differences between the parties. If so, it should be considered a success.
But I’m left thinking Oliver Willis’ take is the right one: “How better to show the American people you aren’t doing anything than to form a debating society rather than debating these issues in the venue where it has an actual impact on our lives?”