The Case for Active Moderators

Falsehoods, missteps, and exaggerations are endemic to all political debates, especially presidential ones. An informed viewer often times feels frustrated by the end of these discussions, annoyed especially by the candidate’s ability to say anything unchallenged. In the last Republican Debate, though, the moderators exhibited that same frustration and were able to press the candidates on the claims each made. In this instance, the moderator’s attempts were poorly received by an audience sympathetic to the candidates, but their proactive questioning could become a model for debates that seek to engage on substance.
Many commentators, the Republican National Committee Chairman included, have already railed against the CNBC moderators’ performance in last night’s debate, pointing especially at the moderators’ tough, incisive questions. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake listed a litany of Twitter complaints against CNBC’s performance and highlighted that many viewers were at times frustrated to hear as much from the moderators as from the candidates.
This all begs the question, should these presidential debates allow candidates to give unfiltered statements with little immediate fact checking? After all, these televised events draw in millions of viewers, many of whom may not be up-to-date with the most recent events and policy analyses. If this is the only time some viewers stop to listen to political arguments, there may be a need to make sure these viewers are not left misguided by misleading claims.
Take the time Ben Carson was pressed on his ties with a nutrition supplement maker facing a deceptive marketing lawsuit. Carson forcefully claimed that he “didn’t have an involvement with them,” and added that anything saying the contrary was “total propaganda.” The CNBC moderator, Carl Quintanilla, pushed back and noted that Carson was on the company’s website “with the logo over [his] shoulder.” Before Carson could respond fully, the audience booed at the moderator, and the disagreement fell out of sight. The immediate audience’s reactions aside, the moderator’s follow-ups to Carson’s remarks gave viewers a fuller picture of his relationship with this company. Without this clarification, viewers could have left the debate believing Carson’s ‘propaganda’ narrative.
Clear falsehoods aside, there were many points in the debate where the candidates appeared to give misleading answers. In Chris Christie’s case, this was most apparent in his discussion of his climate change policy. Christie vehemently protested any sort of government approach, especially Democratic initiatives. John Harwood, the CNBC moderator, pressed Christie to answer about his strategy instead of what he disliked. Christie answered, “What we should do is to be investing in all types of energy.” Harwood, noting that the ambiguous ‘we’ was likely the government, suggested, “You mean government?” Christie was angered by the moderator’s prying, and his frustration was shared by the audience. After elaborating on his approach, conveying that Harwood misrepresented his initial statement, Christie said much of the same, explaining, “We need to make sure that we do everything across all kinds of energy.” Sidestepping the fact that Democrats like President Obama have the same approach, Christie continued to offer an approach where government investment led to private sector development. Like in the cases of Carson and Trump, the moderator was able to follow up on the inconsistencies, although his efforts were not well-liked by the audience and candidates.
In one of the most notable moments in the debate, the tension against the moderators erupted when Ted Cruz gave a strong attack against the media’s bias as a whole. Cruz lambasted the moderator’s question about Trump’s unrealistic proposals to build a wall funded by Mexico, deport all illegal immigrants, and match $10 trillion worth of tax cuts with equal spending cuts or revenue increases (after the moderator listed each of these proposals, Trump answered, “Right” and seemed to find them fair). Cruz also attacked the moderator’s questioning of Carson’s tax proposal, which highlighted the trillion-dollar budgetary shortfalls to come from such a plan. He likewise criticized questions asked to Kasich and Rubio, and ended with a call to refocus on substantive issues.
But were these questions not substantive? When a candidate proposes ideas that appear out of touch with reality, questioning some assumptions of those proposals is essential to the democratic process. Voters must be informed of the benefits and drawbacks of the candidate’s proposals, and many would agree that they deserve to not be misled. Similarly, while the math behind Carson’s tax plan can be quite esoteric, when the shortfalls exceed the trillions, pointing out the flaws is no longer just nit-picking. Loses on those scales are worthy of considerable attention and concern.
Unfortunately, the public does not have a representative at these debates questioning and following up problematic statements. Falsehoods can easily drown in a flurry of diatribes and inflated political speech, leaving audience members and viewers no chance to clarify positions. Especially given that these candidates are seeking the highest government office, voters ought to be able to point out flaws and seek answers to tough questions. Moderators like CNBC’s three are not so much a disturbance as they are the figures we want to cut through the campaign jargon, budgetary irregularities, and blatant lies.
CNBC’s vice president of communications, Brian Steel, said it best: “People who want to be president of the United States should be able to answer tough questions.”