Should the voters have to take a chance on electing an idiot? Yes, candidates for high office should hold press conferences and answer questions from the media and the public.They should not be able to disclose their positions in the fashion they prefer; they already have enough control over their political walk, in front of voters with half closed eyes.
Candidates should answer media questions, but they seldom give a forthright answer. If a media question is on a subject that the candidate isn't comfortable answering, it will be danced around and the candidate will accuse the media of bias in their next sound bite. Radio talk show hosts who claim to have wisdom only exceeded by God have painted the media as a pro left wing tool. That is a very powerful talking point to feed the ears of the faithful, who believe everything they hear from their candidate and the political radio information headquarters. Right is right and if you are a right-wing talk show host today you must be right, right? The left also learned to dance at the same political dancing school, most of them can dance around any media question until the questioner forgets or gives up on the original question.
There was a time when questions coming from the public at open forums revealed the best information about a candidate's position and qualifications. Campaign staffers long ago learned to start planting people in the audience who would ask the right questions to make their candidate shine with the political brilliance they choose. The media doesn't call all the shots, they can be manipulated and sharp campaign organizers will feed on the media shock and awe mentality to get their message out for free at times. With or without questions there is media control, the voters can still elect an idiot or a person who can really pull that old proverbial wool over the voter's eyes.
The voter is still responsible for being informed about the candidates in his own way. If the voter walks into the voting booth and only knows one or two names on the ballot and knows very little about them, he loses and the country loses. The voter has to keep up with and sort out the questions answered by candidates, listen to the speeches and make up his own mind about the candidates. If a voter's decisions are made from information that his mind received mostly from a radio talk show host, he is not a voluntarily free person, he can be led anywhere. Current events, patriotism and flag etiquette should be taught from K-12 and in college too.
Both political parties have ways of influencing the voter's decisions, if the voter stays uninformed and continues to follow a one way political street to the voting booth, politics as we know it will not change. If Washington continues with business as usual we will see a third party system in power in the near future. Will this be a good thing or create a triangle of confusion for the public, the media and the voter?
Candidates would like to spoon feed us their positions on issues in a fashion they prefer as if we are infants. We can choose to eat it or spit it out. Politicians have looked at the majority of voters for decades now as an uninformed don't give a damn group. They have been partly right and have been able to have their way with the future of the country. The kind of job that most of them have done would get any of us fired from our jobs. The media and the public are now getting their last wake up call; the heart of these United States is sending out SOS signals.
The final question is for the candidates, the media and the public, can we all work together to save this great ship?