A More Civil Discussion. Lanhee Chen talks to Armstrong & Getty

I like better than the debates. But um, we're we're We've always just been wondering what what's the best way to pick a president of the United States. Seems like we go about it in a terrible way. Let's introduce our guest, Lan Heatchen, the host of the podcast Crossing Lines with Lan Hea Chen, David and Diane Stephy, research fellow Toover Institution, also the director of Domestic Policy Studies and Lecture at Stanford University. Loan he how are you, sir?

Good morning, get to be with you. Good morning. So at the end of our discussion last time around, the topic came up of the primaries and how they've changed, and how they often yield on electable candidates, and and we're talking about what you thought would be the best way for the parties to boil down the would be candidates and pick somebody, Um, you want to start with the Jack's topics there, the so called debates are idiotic in our minds. What would be better than that? Well,

you guys have a great point about debates. I mean, I've you know, I've been involved in four presidential campaigns and been in a senior role in two of them, and what I can tell you about these debates is that there's nothing more than theater and and the challenges.

Instead of having a real discussion about issues, what you really have are you know, one to two minute position statements that are really about posturing and about trying to appeal to certain constituencies rather than really trying to answer the questions. So I tend to agree that one of the problems we have is now we've got a primary process where you literally have fifteen twenty debates before you even get to people actually voting. And I'm just not

sure that's the best way to do it. I would prefer a system where people actually get to answer questions substantively that the town hall thing actually isn't bad because there you get a little bit more insight and a little bit more detail. But even then, the way these guys set it up, a lot of people in the media, it's just about gotcha questions and that doesn't get us anywhere. And I I'm bothered by crowd response. That's always bothered me in debates. It makes it more fun to watch.

It feels kind of weird when there's no crowd and it's just dead silent. But then it all becomes about what line gets the biggest cheers or hoops or booze or whatever. And that's a heck of a way to run a run a dog and pony show. Well, yeah, Lony, you've been involved in in campaigns, it would be pretty easy to load a town hall audience with twenty people who are in favor of puppy side, I mean, just anything, and they cheer like crazy and people think, yeah, that

person is really popular. Yeah, I mean you saw You've seen this every every time around in UM there were

debates in the Republican primary, for example. I recall there being debates UH in New Hampshire for example, there was a debate in New Hampshire where Marco Rubio, um, you know, had a gap essentially where he basically you know, the knock on him when he was repeating the same thing over and over again and people in the crowd were booing and hooting, and it was pretty clear that Chris Christie's team, his campaign had basically packed the audience against Rubio.

And there was another debate where Rubio had essentially packed the audience. And this is the kind of theater you end up with, which is it's all about getting that crowd response. You guys may remember in two thousand eight there were YouTube debates. There were debates which essentially featured questions from people on YouTube and it was the most random thing ever. And that's what you end up with.

You end up with these situations which you know, to the ordinary person watching, they think, wow, gosh, well that's you know, it seems like that person didn't do all that well and they don't realize all of the stagecraft that goes into it. So this is this is the problem with the current system. Okay, so obviously we need something see Spanish no audience, even handed moderation or extended answers or is came up last time when we were

talking about this. Do we go backwards in time to where the parties get together with the powerful alone in a room and make their own decision and who they think ought to be representing their party. Would that be better? Well?

I think in some ways it would produce an outcome where you would ensure that the nominees of each party, um, you know, probably were people that had very similar profiles, right, So you would have people who had been in government, who had experience, who you know, had had essentially good relationships within the party. And I think in some ways that would produce a more more main streams that of candidates. I just don't think that would ever happen in this

day and age. To go back to this question of how to some candidates for a minute in the general election when we have the general election, the debate structure in the general election where you've got two candidates, that the structure is set, the audience cannot respond to anything that's said during the debate. You've got usually pretty well

regarded journalists who are the moderators. That structure is not bad in terms of comparing candidates, but really what we need is we need an informational platform for the American people to really see what everybody is about. And I tend to think that will help a little bit, you know, not not the smoke filled rooms process, but when will we get more information out there that tends to be

the better idea? Boy, definitely, the dozen or more people on stage where they each speak for forty five seconds is practically worthless. Lan he Chen is online host of the podcast Crossing Lines with Lan he Chen. So, yeah again to the question of, you know, the primary process. The word democracy is thrown around like a religious incantation these days, as if more DeMont cristy is always better and always yields a better result. When that's not true. Um,

you know, it's funny. I keep going back and see the bullet train in California. Oh yeah, for instance, or you know, I remember being fascinating. I think it was. One of my college professors pointed out that democracies are very bad at ending wars because there's national pride involved in all sorts of things, and you have to build a consensus, whereas a dictator can just say this ain't work and and and end it and he's not gonna

suffer for it probably anyway. So the idea of the party elders of smoke filled rooms, those people getting together with an outsized influencer, complete influence, and saying, look, Bernie's never ever gonna win. We need somebody more reasonable than that. Let's look at X, Y or Z that has its appeal. On the other hand, I could see that yielding over and over again candidates on both sides who are just going to perpetuate the concentration of power in Washington, Washington,

d C. Deficit spending and and the scam continuing. So I don't even know what I think. Yeah, and you never really get disruption, and sometimes in a democratic process what you need and want is distruction. You want people who come along. I mean, for for all of the discussion about Donald Trump, what what he was primarily into dozand of sixteen was someone who came along and completely disrupted the process. And I didn't be upset a lot of people, for sure, but to a certain degree, that

is what That is what people want every so often. Now, every so often they want something different, and that that's what democratic processes are designed to yield. The design to be responsive to what people are feeling and what they want, and that has downside. Now, It's one thing when you talk about candidate you guys mentioned the bullet train. It's another thing when you talk about policy and letting people legislate every couple of years, things that may be completely different.

And I have a big problem with how significant the initiative process, for example, has become in California or in other states. The California is a perfect example. Will you go to the ballot and you've got twenty different issues that you're expected to vote on, and who knows about some of this stuff? I mean, it's absolutely ludicrous that we're asked to vote on sometimes, but that's the process.

That's that's what happens. When you have a process that's designed to be maximally democratic, you end up with like voting on things that you have no clue what you're actually voting on. That's not healthy for democracy well, and and the winner carries the force of law, and it's it's been a disaster for folks listening all over the fruited plane and foreign lands. The initiative process in California more democracy has been an unmitigated disaster because you get

to special interest groups, whether their unions or whatever. They higher good pr people. They got plenty and money to pay for them. They spin the heck out of these issues or paint rosy rosy pictures of this, that or the other, and the poor suckers at California you don't have half a clue on transportation infrastructure, for instance. Vote for something utterly idiotic and then it's just it's impossible to kill. So beware lanhi chan us with us crossing

lines with Lan Eachen, Go ahead. No, let's say it's big business. I mean, that's where it comes down to you, guys. I mean that the whole initiative thing is big business for for people who work in the in the campaign industry, and that's what it's become. You've got signature gatherers, you've got people who do the advertising, people who do quote

grass roots work. I mean, it's big business. And that's why the entrenched interests will probably never want to really change the system because they make a lot of money off of it. Hey can we get before we run out time? Four five seconds? Amoch? Can I get a bottom line real quick on the previous thing? So would you go with the current system with just different debates and such and let the lots of democracy into the primary system. Or do you like super delegates kind of

the older mix or what? What? What would you be your bottom line? Yeah? I like cute things. One is I like a debate process that's got fewer debate with rules that are designed for more civil discussion and people

actually hearing about issues. And I do like the you know, some party elder element, whether it's super delegates, what people who understand what the implications are for the parties having a slightly outsized voice, not as totally outside voice, but as slightly outside So can we get forty five seconds on the whole China trade thing? Tariff situation is a Trump on the right side of this? Well, look, I think that at the end of the day, both the

United States and China need a deal. I think the Chinese need a deal worse because their economy is really struggling, and it just demonstrates how dependent they are on on trade. But but fundamentally, in the long run, it's not healthy for either economy to have continuing conflict terrorists. In my mind, in the long run, probably not the right answer. I

think they end up raising costs for consumers here. But in the short run, I think getting China to the table and forcing them to recognize, hey, they've got to make some changes. They can't stop being they can't continue stealing intellectual property and requiring US companies to be in joint ventures where especially their excuses to rip off our stuff. That certainly is the right path, but it's not a sustained along the tap out hope they could get to

some kind of systemic reformed seeing. Yeah, I don't think anybody's thinking of this in the long term, but we'll see. Lan he Chen crossing lines of the line. Hea Chen, look for the podcast for podcasts are distributed. Lani is also a fellow with the Hoover Institution and heads up the Domestic Policy program at Stanford University. Lan he thanks as always good stuff for all your food is out there.

I'm unwrapping a McDonald's steak, egg and cheese bagel. Look at this steak and the juice running down the side. Get a little bit on a wrapper here, and then the fluffy egg and real cheese flowed over the thigh, looking just so good. Grey old onions and a butt of bagel too, founds off a mcdonald' steak, egg and cheeze bagel for breakfast. Love It Up, I participate in McDonald's