Want to fix the GOP presidential debates? Get rid of the moderator

In recent years, the moderator has been a repeated force for skullduggery in the Republican Party. The resentment some Republicans have for George Stephanopoulos, Candy Crowley, John King and others is entirely outsized given their relatively centrist positioning on the policy issues compared to other anchors. It is entirely driven by the view that they have repeatedly put their thumbs on the scale in favor of injecting left-wing narratives, jumping into highly personal territory, or playing real-time fact-checker for the candidates. This has a general tendency to turn debates into contests between the moderators and the candidates about who will screw up more. Rather than just introducing a topic and stepping offstage, moderators have weighed into the proceedings in ways that have a profound impact on the nominating process. No media personality should have such power.

Here’s how a debate would work if you cut that out: candidates would debate an actual topic for an extended amount of time – say three topics with three questions in a policy space over an entire 90 minute debate (for example, a foreign policy debate where the questions concern what to do about ISIS, what to do about Russia, and what to do about the NSA, or an economic debate about taxes, trade, and Too Big To Fail). With 12 candidates speaking in that time period, they’re still only going to get two and a half minutes on each topic – but without a moderator, candidates are more likely to be drawn into debates with the people on the stage who disagree with their views. In a more free-flowing debate, there is no Wolf Blitzer to cut things off, and the confrontations will be more extended – but I expect also more substantive, as arguments will be more extended, gotcha questions eliminated, and the need to have quick quips as a substitute for a point will not be as pressing.