Different line of questioning needed at debates

Why do we have leaders’ debates?

I suspect those Ontarians who bothered to watch the most-recent election debate are probably asking themselves that very question — I know that I am.

It’s not that there was anything particularly wrong with the evening and kudos to both the moderators and party leaders for all trying their best. But what was its purpose?

Theoretically, I guess it was to inform voters on the various policy positions of the parties to allow us to compare-and-contrast them. However, all I remember hearing was the intention of each leader to throw huge amounts of money at every problem in a way that was somehow different from the boatloads of money promised by their competitor. Did I really talk that way when I was in politics?

In fairness, there were a few points of contrast, such as the differing party positions on the building of Highway 413.

But let’s be honest, examples like these were few and far between.

Why does this happen? Mainly it’s because public policy has become unbelievably complex and there are no easy solutions, yet voters have short attention spans.

The only way for a party to get noticed is to simplify issues, couch them in bumper-sticker slogans and ditch the nuance.

How else could you try to explain your position on something as complex as health care, education or the economy in a few short minutes while three other people are yelling at you?

Some say that leader’s debates help us “get to know” the party leaders as people.

Fair enough, but I am not sure that learning who throws the best zingers or has the cleverest lines (often prepared in advance) is an ideal way to judge who should lead the province.

What if we focused on something else?

What if leaders’ debates attempted to show us what makes party leaders tick?

What if their goal was to reveal a party leader’s values, beliefs, and deepest convictions?

Let me share several questions that I have always wanted to hear asked at a debate.

What do we owe each other? How far can we get in perfecting the world?

Are there public policy issues that can’t be solved by government?

To what extent do you believe that people are on the margins of society because of their own bad choices or because society is rigged against them?

Do you believe that there are sacred things in our world that can never be altered — lines that can never be crossed? What are they?

Do you believe that big corporations have too much power?

These are not abstract questions. The answers to each of them have profound implications for everything from tax policy to social policy.

They determine how governments support the poor and vulnerable, develop programs around the environment and allow the private sector to operate in key areas of our lives.

Wouldn’t it be kind of interesting to hear each party leader grapple with them?

I get it. Election debates are not philosophy seminars, and many may find my questions wacky.

But tell me, are they any wackier than asking each party leader their greatest political regret or, as they did during the federal Conservative leadership debate, the last TV program that they binge watched?

Mine might be more useful.