I have always imagined this kind of debate:
Each debater argues for the position or the candidate that he opposes.
Yes, you read that right. This is how it would work, and here is why it would be valuable, especially on the presidential stage.
The rules:
- You argue for the candidate you oppose. Your debater argues for the candidate that he opposes.
- An audience will declare who makes the best argument.
- Who is the winner? The person who best argues for his opponent, not the person who was voted by the audience to have made the best argument on behalf of his opponent. The debater wins, not the position.
Confused?
Here is an example:
Say that I — Side One of the debate — am for Bernie Sanders. Under the rules of this debate, I have to argue for Donald Trump.
Side Two of the debate — my debate partner — is for Donald Trump. Under the rules, he has to argue for Bernie Sanders.
Who wins?
If my argument for Donald Trump is deemed the superior argument, then my candidate — Bernie Sanders — wins.
If my debater’s argument for Bernie Sanders is deemed the superior argument, then his candidate — Donald Trump — wins.
This is not a suggestion for a new format for the Academy Awards. I am not trying to turn presidential candidates into actors. I am trying to test whether they can understand candidates and policies very different from their own.
Of course, there is no real winner in a presidential debate until the national conventions and the election, which determine the actual winner. But debating is a sport. Debating is an art. Debating is a way of clarifying issues and candidates. When a formal debate is formally judged, there are winners and losers.
If we could construct a presidential debate under my inverse rules, it would be very enlightening. How so?
Right now, our presidential candidates cannot see beyond their own noses.
They know the value of their own positions perfectly.
They do not know the value of any other position.
No candidate shows any evidence of capacity for nuance.
Quite the opposite. Not only are their positions the exclusively correct ones, but their opponents’ positions are so lacking in merit that they need to be bitterly denounced.
Enter, my debate rules.
For any candidate to be able to put forth a superior argument for someone else whom he thinks is dead wrong on policy is to have what it takes to be a superior leader.
Thoroughly to understand a person or a policy that one does not think is right for the country is to be able to govern in a way that brings people together. Simply to see one’s own side manifests the capacity to polarize, to speak only to one’s base, to be able to feel righteous, not necessarily able to get much done.
So imagine this. Bernie Sanders is told to stand up in a debate and tell us why Trump is the best qualified candidate to be president. And Bernie Sanders will do so. Because only if he excels in making this argument will he win the debate.
For Bernie Sanders to extol the virtues of Donald Trump would tell us that Sanders can step out of his own shoes, can wear different spectacles, can see beyond his slogans.
Of course, Trump would need to do the same — to excel in telling us why Bernie is the best qualified candidate to be the next president. He would do this because he, too, would want to win the debate.
Indeed, if Trump could make the best case, and his case is for Sanders, then Trump would demonstrate that he has what it takes to bring people together.
The same for all of the candidates, if they could succeed in this kind of inverse debate.
Right now, they all regard all the positions taken by the other candidates to be absolutely wrong and mutually exclusively of their own.
If we could have a debate like the one I’m describing — switch positions, switch candidates, as an exercise in learning how to build bridges — now that would be a debate of value to the country.
Copyright © 2020 by the Intermountain Jewish News
