Last night I attended The Dayton Daily News / WMUB Election Forum held at the Cox Media Center. The topic of the forum was jobs and the economy, and featured a four person panel responding to questions. The panel had two participants who generally are considered conservatives: retired Ohio Governor Bob Taft, and Miami University economic professor, Thomas E. Hall. And it had two participants who, I’m sure, generally are considered liberals: Richard Stock and Jon Honeck.
The panelists (L-R):Jon Honeck, senior researcher for Policy Matters Ohio, a nonprofit policy research organization; Bob Taft, former governor and now a distinguished research associate at UD; Thomas E. Hall, economics professor, Miami University; Richard Stock, director of the Business Research Group, University of Dayton. Moderator: Gary Scott, News Director at NPR at eighty-eight-five, WMUB. William Hershey (foreground) DDN reporter and Caleb Stevens, Dayton Business Managing Editor, also asked questions.
Dr. Hall’s viewpoint became clear in his sparring with fellow economist, Dr. Stock, the director of the Business Research Group, University of Dayton. Hall advanced the position that the sub prime mortgage disaster flowed from a congressional push to provide housing for low income people. He cited a 1999 New York Times article to back up his claim, and seemed to wave it in the air, and said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack were pushed into buying subprime mortgages sold by other companies. This, of course, is the Republican theme, ala Shawn Hannity, Newt Gingrich, etc. Stock rebuked Hall’s point of view and pointed out that it was a lack of overall regulation that was the source of the problem. Stock, it seems, pretty much agrees with the substance of my article: Fannie And Freddie Not Responsible For Housing Bust; Affordable Housing Goals Not At Fault
Dr. Stock and Dr. Hall had opposing views on a lot of topics. After the forum, I had an opportunity to talk with Dr. Stock, and told him that in my evaluation, the forum failed to live up to its potential — it failed to elevate or challenge the understanding of the listeners. Much of the discussion seemed a rehash of familiar topics, and the differences in point of views of the panelists were not usefully examined, in a way that might give insight to or increase understanding of the panel’s listeners. It hardly seems worth the effort to get the participation of highly qualified panelists, with differing viewpoints, if, somehow the process doesn’t explore in depth those differences, doesn’t enlighten. The defining aim of an election forum should be to educate and the processes employed by the forum should be designed to facilitate education.
If the program would have consisted of any one of the four highly qualified panelists, simply leading a one person seminar, the overall educative value of the 90 minutes, it seems to me, would have been greatly increased. The four panelist, as organized, in my judgment, simply failed to educate.
Members of the audience were given a chance to ask questions. The questions were not submitted to the moderator in advance. I volunteered to ask a question, but was not chosen. One questioner expressed outrage at “trickle down” strategies; another complained that as owner of a small business, she’d be doing a lot better in Texas. And, predictably, as could be expected at a public gathering where tax is the topic, some anti-tax zealot took the opportunity to monopolize everyone’s time by advocating and explaining the “Fair Tax” –Neil Bortz and Mike Huckabee’s loopy idea — and asking the panel to respond. (This person started out, “I hate to pay taxes.”)
The 90 minute program ended, it seems to me, without impacting anyone’s level of understanding very much. The expertise inherent in the panel members, Republicans and Democrats, was very underused. I particularly would like to have heard a lot more from Jon Honeck of Policy Matters Ohio. Honeck is an expert on the state budget and it seems such a forum, coming only three weeks before we elect a new State Assembly, should have centered on State Assembly Tax matters. I posted an article today written by one of Honeck’s colleagues, Twelve Tax Loopholes Ohio Should Close To Generate $270 Million Additional Revenue Each Year
The forum, it seems to me, would have been more valuable if the topic would have been less diffuse, more focused, and, questions from the audience better screened. Fewer questions should be asked at such forums: a moderator should choose from submitted questions, and most questions should be published prior to the meeting. Panel participants should be encouraged to bring to the meeting visual aids, charts, power point, videos, etc., sufficient to add to the succinctness and depth of their presentation.
The Election Forum has two more meetings:
- October 21st: Ohio Attorney General Candidates and State Ballot Issues
- October 28th: Foreign Policy, War in Iraq and National Security
I was in attendance and noticed your question was entertained. When the white board was shown with your name, no response was given and Cleeve went on to the next participant.
Cleeve would write a persons name on the a small white board, waive it to the crowd and wait for that person to line up at the mic. Your name was actually the first name displayed.
I was busy taking notes of the meeting, and, evidently neglected to see my name posted. I just assumed that there were more people wanting to ask questions than the time allowed and that time had run out before my name had a chance to be posted. Thanks for correcting me. Had I seen my name I would have asked the panel to analyze possible solutions to balancing Ohio’s budget. See: Chris Widener, Republican Senate Candidate, Boasts About Tax Cuts, But How Will He Solve Ohio’s Budget Crisis?
So it sounds like we have the same problem as with the presidential debates. People make speeches of talking points, and we have no way to evaluate the claims in depth.
The best format for such things is the Diane Rehm show that is on PBS in mornings and may be repeated some evenings. Rehm sounds like your grandmother, but asks tough questions with substance and followups, so it’s impossible to sound good bs-ing her on the air.
How for instance do we solve the issue of whether the mortgage mess was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lowering standards, at the behest of ACORN and various prominent Democrats, forcing the mortgage industry to make bad loans, which is the conservative version, or that it was caused by a system of marketplace incentives that rewarded the making of bad mortgages and selling them to investors, and which was not adequately regulated, a view which Bock, I and others would subscribe to?
Say we have a grandmotherly moderator that no one will dare bs. What questions do we ask each side that might examine weaknesses in their position? How important is it that the version seems to try to fit the facts into a preexisting theory (the poor earn their poverty and any efforts to help them will just do harm; capitalists when turned loose will lie, cheat and steal to enrich themselves and this ends up causing harm)? How important that it associates your opponent (Obama, Bush, McCain) with the cause of the problem?