Charles Dharapak, Associated Press
Although I understand Linda Jones' desire to have presidential debates behind closed doors ("Republicans should unite," Readers' Forum, Jan. 18), I can offer three reasons why debates are televised and very public (and these reasons apply to presidential candidates from both major parties).
First, it allows for citizens to be involved from the very beginning and helps shape policy. Public debates are useful in keeping the democratic process alive. Second, the debates force candidates to articulate their qualifications and beliefs and demonstrate their leadership styles. This gives the public information to decide, based on tangible evidence, which candidates they like best.
And third, the process essentially strips candidates to their essence and exposes any and every imperfection. Although this is sometimes painful to watch, the process sifts out candidates with the most weaknesses and helps ensure the best ones are on the ballot in November. What doesn't kill them makes them stronger. The current process ultimately brings candidates that are most qualified and best reflect the views of the American people.
- Can you pass the U.S. citizenship test?
- Lois M. Collins: Some think women are...
- Classical liberalism offers sole durable...
- W. Bradford Wilcox: The new progressive...
- In our opinion: Don't 'Army-ize' local police...
- John Hoffmire: To feed the world, we must...
- In our opinion: Are we too pessimistic about...
- Michael Gerson: Tall order for GOP in ’16
- W. Bradford Wilcox: The new progressive... 48
- Letter: Bush dilemma 2.0 42
- In our opinion: Don't 'Army-ize' local... 30
- Can you pass the U.S. citizenship test? 28
- Lois M. Collins: Some think women are... 28
- George F. Will: Obama needs Congress to... 27
- In our opinion: How committed are... 27
- John Hoffmire: To feed the world, we... 24