Politics By ROBERT KIECKHEFER

Gubernatorial debates: a failure

CLEARLY, something needs to be done to improve the quality of political debates. This year's first encounter in Peoria between Gov. James R. Thompson and former Sen. Adlai E. Stevenson III was a disgrace. The second meeting in Chicago started off a little better but soon sank to the level of name-calling.

In neither debate was there any sustained, substantial give-and-take on the actual problems facing the state — which, of course, should be the issues of the campaign. During the Peoria debate, that lack was obscured somewhat by the acrimonious charges and counter-charges. It was more obvious in the Chicago debate.

Even when the candidates did get around to the issues, they sometimes lamented the fact they couldn't really discuss them within the time frame established for the debates.

In Peoria, for example, Stevenson answered a question about his economic recovery plan with a sigh, said it's all outlined in this 300-page campaign plan and offered to provide the questioner with a copy of that document.

So what's the point of having a debate if it's set up in such a way that issues can't be discussed? It's frustrating to the candidates and, if it doesn't directly cause them to resort to slogan-chanting and name-calling, it certainly opens the way for that kind of behavior.

Two things need to be changed.

First, the scope of each debate has to be limited. If the candidates in future campaigns agree to four debates, the sponsoring group should decide on one or two issues for each of them and firmly limit discussion to those issues. The issues chosen obviously would differ with the nature of the campaign and the problems facing the state and nation. For this year, they might well have been unemployment, school funding, the property tax and roads, bridges and mass transit, for example. That change would permit candidates to focus their thoughts, do their homework and be better prepared to discuss specifics of their proposals or their records. It also would produce a different psychological mood, freeing the candidates from the feeling that they have only a few seconds to score points on each issue — a feeling that seems to prevail under the current ground rules.

Second, we're using the wrong people to ask questions. In Peoria, members of the public were chosen to ask questions. That was a good idea in terms of letting the people have a say, but most of the questions were so general and unfocused that they simply weren't answerable — especially in two minutes.

In Chicago, members of the news media did the job. While most of the questions were more to the point, the panel still wasn't able to pursue the candidates for specific answers. The fact is, most reporters, commentators and editorial writers are generalists — even those who specialize in political coverage. They learn enough about most subjects to do their jobs well but are far from experts in economic development, highway funding and the wide range of issues that face the state.

In the third debate in Carbondale, the candidates were to question each other. Given their demonstrated propensity to misunderstand each other, that format didn't promise to be much of an improvement.

Who should pose the questions?

Picture this: The issue is transportation. On one side of the stage sits Thompson. With him, in an informal discussion group, are two or three members of the Democratic staffs from the House and Senate Transportation committees. On the other side of the stage are Stevenson and Republican staffers from the same committees.

Stevenson starts with a five-minute presentation. But then, instead of Thompson following with his own

2 | November 1982 | Illinois Issues

opening remarks, the GOP committee staffers start questioning Stevenson. The questioning goes on for five minutes and the staffers would be instructed to press for details and specifics — to challenge questionable statements and to be combative.

After five minutes, Thompson makes his opening statement and then is subjected to five minutes of questioning.

For the rest of the debate, the candidates alternate five-minute questioning periods. There are no closing statements.

The choice of committee staff members is the key to this proposal. They are the closest thing our governmental process has produced to a combination of expertise and partisanship.

Since the late W. Russell Arrington began upgrading staffing in the late 1960s, the staffs in both houses of the legislature, once weak and ineffective, have become one of the most influential segments of government. Many are specialists in their fields, most are young and well-educated and most are politically well attuned. As a result, they would be both able and motivated to pursue issues with the candidates and to pin them down to details and specifics.

The reasons for the suggested format should be fairly obvious. By switching back and forth, each candidate could comment on the statements of the other — thus preserving an element of "debate." Closing statements are abolished because the final speaker often is tempted to hurl a new charge which can't be countered by his opponent. Granted, the format could produce some pretty esoteric discussions which would be difficult for the candidates to handle and for the average voter to understand. But is that necessarily bad?

The format would be a failure if each candidate weren't forced several times to admit he was stumped by questions. And the judgment to be made would be which was better prepared — not which of them was perfect.

As for the voters . . . well, if 10 percent of them get to see an intelligent discussion of issues and understand most of it, isn't that an improvement over the current state of affairs, even if 50 percent were watching?

November 1982 | Illinois Issues | 3