After two debates, I’m starting to wonder if, perhaps, we’ve reached a point in our national political experience that we ought to consider doing away with the style of debates that we’ve grown accustomed to.

I understand why these kinds of traditional debates were important in the nineteenth and even early to mid twentieth century, when we did not have the transportation or media technology that would allow for large numbers of voters to see or hear from candidates. Debates provided a great opportunity for candidates to get together in front of voters and talk about the issues.

However, in today’s world, the whole project has become something of a farce. A true debate, in the academic sense as they are held in colleges across the country, is less about the style and more about the substance. Anyone who has ever watched or participated in a Lincoln-Douglas or CEDA style debate knows that the goal is to have both better evidence and better arguments than your opponent. There are rules and strategies for competing. There are judges who score the debate to determine an actual winner.

Presidential debates have become media spectacles. What has anyone learned from watching the first two debates? Not much, I’d argue. Everyone has already seen and heard Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin ad nauseum. If we don’t know what Obama thinks about health care or what John McCain thinks about the war in Iraq at this point, then we’re just not paying attention. In the age of cable news, the Internet, and YouTube, you can follow every word the candidates say if you choose.

The debates aren’t about issues at all, because if they were, that would require both the candidates and the moderator to have a much better grasp on the facts. In a real debate, Biden couldn’t have made the ridiculous claim that the U.S. and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Or that the U.S. has spent more in Iraq in a month than in Afghanistan in seven years. Or that Article 1 of the Constitution has anything to do with the Vice President’s role in the executive branch.

I actually think that the style that Rick Warren used at Saddleback is a better set-up than we’ve seen so far. I like the one-on-one style of moderator and candidate sitting across from each other. I would add a panel of “fact checkers” who could listen to each candidate’s answers, and then offer rebuttals or ask for clarification when something less than truthful is said. It’s something to consider.

RealLivePreacher was equally unimperssed by the debate this week, and offers a much more user-intensive approach to choosing your candidate.

1. The television political experts are creating their own reality. Listen to them if you wish, but do not give them much authority.

2. Choose your top issues and concentrate on those.

3. Bring the best of your intellect and experience to the table. That’s all that is required of you.

This video of Jonathan Haidt giving a TED Talk is a fascinating approach to understanding the differences between liberals and conservatives.

I must admit an ignorance to the field of “moral psychology”, but this video offers a nice starting point.

If you can sit through 18 minutes, I’d be curious to hear your reaction to what he has to say. Personally, I think he cops out at the end without really offering a conclusion that makes any sense, but that’s just my opinion.