Debating in D.C.

A few years ago, as a high school junior, I spent the summer in Washington, D.C. While there, I was a page in the U.S. Senate. As a page, I got to witness first-hand the debates and actions the Senate takes on a daily basis.\nThis time was amazing, but something seemed to be missing from the Senate. The body that is supposed to debate some of the most important policy issues facing the nation and the world doesn't, in fact, debate at all.\nIf you watch the Senate on C-SPAN2 (don't deny it, I know you set your VCRs), you will undoubtedly see the camera focused on a lone senator delivering a speech about this or that pet issue. The senator will be reading a prepared speech to (and, here's what the magic of television conceals) an empty room.\nAt any given moment, there are no more than three or four (out of 100) senators on the floor. Those on the floor, speaking about important issues, are rarely debating. The prepared speech is the method of choice.\nSuch speeches, needless to say, are rarely inspiring or thought-provoking. But, there is a movement to change this and bring debates back to Congress.\nNorman Ornstein, a Congressional observer, recently began encouraging the House and Senate to restore real debates to Congress. Ornstein's proposal is to bring several senators together to debate contentious issues in prime time and have a real discussion of ideas.\nLast week, as Monday's Washington Post reported, the Senate took Ornstein up on his idea. Four senators -- two Democrats and two Republicans -- took to the Senate floor to discuss the important issue of Social Security reform. \nSenator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who participated in the debates, was quoted in the Post as saying, ""It was serious, thoughtful." His Republican counterpart in the debate, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said "the basic concept of having the issue joined, right there on the Senate floor in real time, is a good one."\nTo the senators, a real, unscripted debate seems like an earth-shattering idea. But such debate and exchange of ideas is what we send people to Washington for. We don't fantasize about our representatives meeting with special interests or getting cornered by fellow legislators before making conclusions.\nWe want them, God forbid, to be forced to hear all sides of an issue in a public forum. Indeed, such forums were frequent until the latter part of the 20th century. Before television came to the Senate, many senators were forced to stay on the floor and discuss issues. \nThe underlying attribute of authentic debates is that they allow for a free exchange of ideas. Such an exchange helps uncover the flaws of weak arguments and the strengths of strong ones.\nFurthermore, debates are more exciting to watch than prepared speeches. Above, I joked about C-SPAN's lack of viewership, but who would want to watch a mundane senator deliver a canned speech? If we inject some controversy and some back-and-forth into the process, there will also be a greater reason to pay a little attention to Congress.\nHopefully, the debates encouraged by Ornstein will catch hold in Congress. We will never return to the days when Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun debated issues late into the evening under candlelight. But with the greater discourse that actual debates brings, people may show renewed interest in a process that returns decision making to a public forum, instead of a back room.