When Newt Gingrich triumphantly challenged President Obama to seven, three-hour Lincoln-Douglas style debates in early December, the prospect appeared to coincide with his image as the intellectual Republican candidate. Yet since his impressive performances in GOP debates, the professorial Gingrich appeal has tapered significantly. His disappointing fourth-place finish in the Iowa Caucus-due, in part, to a horde of negative advertisements in the state-shattered any hopes of the utopian, debate-based primary Gingrich desired. A strong showing in Florida could give a jolt of energy to his candidacy, but with a limited war chest and reservations about his personal life, Gingrich would best avoid buying new milk.
But if the Gingrich campaign is to die, his ideas ought not die with it. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were always a long shot; the Obama campaign would have little incentive to fully participate. And indeed the innate academic, philosophical and historical characteristics of a Lincoln-Douglas style debate would, unfortunately, satisfy neither the television media's nor the viewing public's attention span.
Yet the prospect of increased public interaction between the branches of American government could potentially alter the structural foundations of both national campaigns and the legislative process. What would fundamentally alter political interaction in the United States for the better-and perhaps Gingrich the orator would agree-is John McCain's 2008 election proposal: introduce a regular time for both houses of Congress to publicly question the president in the style of the United Kingdom's Parliamentary questions.
Every Wednesday, from noon to half-past, the Prime Minister of Great Britain is barraged with questions, accusations and general criticisms from the members of the House of Commons. The event is televised, wildly popular and allows the United Kingdom's legislative members an irreplaceable opportunity for direct interaction with their most executive member. As one would expect, the style in which parliamentary questions are asked often suggest an implicit criticism and the inquest can turn ugly. But the weekly opportunity remains a direct, public check on the accountability of the prime minister.
The prime minister question session is also quite difficult to handle. One of Tony Blair's first actions as prime minister was to condense the parliamentary question time from two 15-minute debates per week into one 30-minute affair. He's made little secret of his motivation: The stress of two weekly sessions was too much for him to handle. Imagine an American president having to sustain thirty minutes of questions from the members of the House of Representatives each week with no previous preparation and no limit to the scope and depth of questions. Former President George W. Bush would lie in shambles, but would Obama fair any better?
The implementation of a weekly period in which the president faced questions from both houses-moderated by the respective speaker of each-would fundamentally enhance the legislative process. It would represent an inherent check on the growing power of the executive branch, encourage public interaction between the parties and force the president to remain informed on his administration's actions.
It would not, as some would suggest, challenge the concept of equal separation between the branches of government. Instead, regular questioning of the president would help facilitate an end to the current culture of separatism and resentment between parties and politicians on Capitol Hill. Currently, the respective members of legislature condemn the executive's actions on television, and the President indirectly responds through his press secretary. An endless shouting match, amplified during elections, drowns out either side from taking accountability for the creation and implementation of public policy.
This establishment of separate camps, like the antagonism between college football fans, further impedes true cooperation while inciting legislative stalemate. Regular interaction between the legislature and executive through public questions is hardly a complete solution, but at least would offer something reminiscent of cooperative government.
Such a requirement would also fundamentally change the way we judge candidates for the presidency. Do Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum have the ability to successfully respond to direct, public criticisms of their administration while in office? Did Nixon? If such a requirement became a regular construct of the presidential office, perhaps this would improve the quality of vetting during the primary season, and thus the quality of the candidates themselves.
But is a public question and answer forum just a pipe dream? Unless a presidential candidate like John McCain committed to the implementation of such a requirement, an overriding majority in the legislature would be necessary in order to pass such a bill-one that any sane president, fearful of the prospect of very visible accountability, would veto with all their might.
Miles Kellerman is a junior majoring in political science. He is writing from Sydney, Australia. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
