Have the Debates Have Outlasted Their Purpose?

Have the Presidential candidate debates outlived their purpose?

I like meaningful rituals and ceremony. I enjoy various forms of theater, from cinema to theme parks, and even, on rare occasion, well-done pro wrestling. And wile I enjoy parody and satire, I don't suffer theater seriously pretending to be reality. I haven't been watching the GOP debates, because I think from what I've seen they are closer to theater than a meaningful exercise. Then the reaction spin cycle adds to the circus. The problem is, this mess has an effect on our lives, and the whole world.

What is the purpose of these debates? Of what benefit are they to the electorate in helping to decide who would be the best President from pack of candidates?

That brings up the question, "What are the duties of a President?"

-Serve as Commander-in-Chief. This includes protecting our national security, directing the military, controlling our nukes, and securing our borders.

-Sign or Veto Legislation. Could the legislation have been written much better? Will there be a veto-proof voting block in Congress?

-Make Appointments/Nominations. This is especially important with judicial nominations, including to the Supreme Court of the United States.

-Execute/Enforce Federal Law. Will the President aggressively crack down on crime and corruption?

-Issue Executive Orders, Pardons, Commutations.

Who do you want as Commander-in-Chief?
Who do you want nominating judges?
Who do you want wielding the veto pen?
Who do you want giving executive orders?
Who do you want issuing pardons?

In addition to these duties, a President can offer moral leadership and use the bully pulpit to encourage some things and discourage others; and be the international face of the union. The President acts as a national cheerleader (and, in the case of Leftists like Obama, a national apologizer).

As Republicans, conservatives, and advocates of limited government, we would tend to also want a President who will contribute to limiting government, advancing our American principles in the public mind and around the world, and strengthen the Republican Party by getting Republicans elected and raising funds.

It is NOT the duty of a President to:

-Ensure you get the education you want at the cost to you that you want.
-Ensure you have a job you enjoy with the compensation you want.
-Ensure you have the kind of house you want at the cost to you that you want.
-Ensure you have the health insurance coverage you want at a cost to you that you want.
-Ensure that everyone else likes you and supports your goals and needs, or that you like you.
-Control the climate of the world.

So how to these debates show voters who would be best at fulfilling the duties of President? They can show if someone has poise and an attractive personality under pressure, and if they can give a persuasive argument in a short amount of time. That’s about it. The negatives about these debates outweigh the positives.

"Town hall" meetings may lack some of the more important questions, with people stuck in 1968 who want to know how the President is going to take care of them and supply their weed, or teens who want to know what style of underwear the candidate is wearing.

There's a better way to show has poise and an attractive personality under pressure, and if they can give a persuasive argument in a short amount of time. Rather than debates, we should have interviews. Yes, we already have interviews on Sunday morning news shows, or other news magazine. But we need more formalized, live interviews of all of the major candidates. Ideally, there would be multiple interviewers – let's say three – balanced by bias or ideology, who are serious people who would have researched the candidates' backgrounds, records, and policy positions relevant to the duties of President, and prepared questions of substance rather than question that are part of a silly game of "let's try to trip you on on TV and see if you can remember things that you'll easily be able to look up or ask an advisor about". There should be no mob audibly, booing, cheering, or shouting things out.

It would be up to each candidate to answer the questions, including follow-up questions, asked by the interview panel, who could show video clips, play audio, put up articles, etc. and use those as reference. There would be nobody interrupting the candidate, except perhaps one of the panelists if the candidate goes off on an extended, irrelevant tangent.

It would very much be an on-camera job interview.

Would it be perfect? Of course not. But it would be more effective, I have to think, than the debates and town halls we have now.