I’m not sure it would lead to better politicians as much as would it lead to politicians adapting their bullshit skills to better fit the new interview set up.
Many of the bullshit explanations politicians give are perceived as perfectly acceptable to the wider public.
MODERATOR:
Should gay marriage be legal?
POLITICIAN:
Nope.
MODERATOR:
Why not?
POLITICIAN:
It goes against the teachings of my religion. It says in passage X:YZ of the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. I refuse to go against the command of God in my time in office.
That answer is fine to many, maybe most, Americans. If the moderator presses the politician on his religious beliefs at this point, he comes off as biased, far too biased to be interviewing presidential candidates.
In general, I do think demanding more of politicians is a safe bet to be a Good Thing though.
That’s not necessarily an inconstant view, by the way; most Christians follow the teachings of Paul where he said that most of the old testament “ritual purity” rules (keeping kosher, circumcision, ect) do not apply to Christians (for theological reasons that probably aren’t worth going into here), but that old testament “ethical teachings” do still apply.
(nods) That’s actually an argument used by the more moderate Christian groups (some of the “mainline Protestant” churches, for example) who don’t have a problem with gay people and want to allow things like gay marriage in their church
Many of the bullshit explanations politicians give are perceived as perfectly acceptable to the wider public.
Some of them are, but a lot of the them aren’t. Opposing gay marriage because you think it’s violates a your religion is a straightfoward thing. There no lying or deception involved if the politician fulfills his promise and votes against gay marriage after the election. If you don’t like those politicans you can elect other ones. The debate did it’s job of accurately informing the voters about the politicians.
On the other hand a lot of things politicians evade questions and don’t accurately inform the voters about their positions.
Right, tougher debate moderators could make it clearer what each candidate really believes by reducing deception and vagueness, but probably wouldn’t have any effect on making straightforward dumb-but-popular views any less popular.
I’m not sure it would lead to better politicians as much as would it lead to politicians adapting their bullshit skills to better fit the new interview set up.
Many of the bullshit explanations politicians give are perceived as perfectly acceptable to the wider public.
MODERATOR: Should gay marriage be legal?
POLITICIAN: Nope.
MODERATOR: Why not?
POLITICIAN: It goes against the teachings of my religion. It says in passage X:YZ of the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. I refuse to go against the command of God in my time in office.
That answer is fine to many, maybe most, Americans. If the moderator presses the politician on his religious beliefs at this point, he comes off as biased, far too biased to be interviewing presidential candidates.
In general, I do think demanding more of politicians is a safe bet to be a Good Thing though.
Well, passage X+1:YZ+6 says the same thing about tattoos.
(Which is particularly hilarious when people get a tattoo of the former passage.)
That’s not necessarily an inconstant view, by the way; most Christians follow the teachings of Paul where he said that most of the old testament “ritual purity” rules (keeping kosher, circumcision, ect) do not apply to Christians (for theological reasons that probably aren’t worth going into here), but that old testament “ethical teachings” do still apply.
Sure, but how do people know where the gerrymandered border between ritual purity and ethical teachings is, so that homosexuality is in the latter?
(nods) That’s actually an argument used by the more moderate Christian groups (some of the “mainline Protestant” churches, for example) who don’t have a problem with gay people and want to allow things like gay marriage in their church
Some of them are, but a lot of the them aren’t. Opposing gay marriage because you think it’s violates a your religion is a straightfoward thing. There no lying or deception involved if the politician fulfills his promise and votes against gay marriage after the election. If you don’t like those politicans you can elect other ones. The debate did it’s job of accurately informing the voters about the politicians.
On the other hand a lot of things politicians evade questions and don’t accurately inform the voters about their positions.
Right, tougher debate moderators could make it clearer what each candidate really believes by reducing deception and vagueness, but probably wouldn’t have any effect on making straightforward dumb-but-popular views any less popular.