Maybe we should have political discussions instead of political debates.
A discussion would focus on clearly identifying where the candidates actually agree on an issue. I am “assuming” that there is some agreement at some level.
After the candidates and the moderator define the common ground, then each candidate could state the next few steps they would take on the issue. The voters could then evaluate each candidate on their suggested next steps or the next steps could become the basis for further grown-up discussion.
I would like to hear the candidates’ “common ground” on issues including Social Security, Medicare, the national debt, taxation, and several other issues. As an example, the candidates would need to state whether they consider Social Security to be worthy of keeping. Do they acknowledge that its current funding status will require a reduction in benefits in the next decade? Do they agree on any possible steps to fund Social Security or would they prefer to eliminate or reduce Social Security benefits?
If we could start with common ground then the voters might be able to make more informed decisions about the candidates and we might actually become a little less polarized and maybe even a little more civil toward each other. Please focus on our unity instead of our differences. In the absence of televised national discussions I urge all voters to insist that the New Hampshire candidates acknowledge where they agree with the other party before they focus on the differences.
RICHARD MOORE
Chichester