Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas participated in some legendary debates in their historic 1858 U.S. Senate campaigns. On Oct. 1, Massachusetts gubernatorial candidates Mitt Romney and Shannon O’Brien squared off in their second debate. Talk about de-evolution.

While passion and issues dominated the Lincoln-Douglas debates, damage control and image dominate the Romney-O’Brien exchanges. If the debates of the 1858 campaign are the standards of civic political discussion, then the current debates are nothing more than live campaign commercials.

The downward spiral of modern political debates did not start with Mitt Romney and Shannon O’Brien. However, these two candidates have done nothing to buck the current trend.

First off, the problems with current political debates is structural. No matter who participates, nothing of any significance can possibly occur. In the most recent debate, the two candidates had 60 seconds to answer questions on such controversial issues as gay marriages, private school vouchers and abortion. How can either Romney or O’Brien possibly state their beliefs on these important issues in such a short amount of time? They cannot be expected to state their complete education plan in one minute. A solution to this problem would be more debates, ironically. Romney and O’Brien would be much more effective in relaying their complete agenda in specialized debates. If the current system remains, then voters will only receive sound bites.

Secondly, and most importantly, is political paranoia. Candidates for high-profile offices are so scared of misspeaking, that any voter can practically see both Romney and O’Brien editing their statements before they utter them. The two did not speak what was on their minds, but what they thought independent voters wanted to hear. Extremism in debates, on the left or right of the political spectrum, is a no-no. In order to get elected, Romney and O’Brien have to carefully tip-toe in the middle. This was evident in the last debate. Both repeated rehearsed responses to the panelists questions. When the two got the chance to ask each other questions, the lack of spontaneity and discussion became painfully apparent. One would ask a question, the other would turn, face the camera, and deliver a nicely pre-packaged answer. There was no discussion. There was no debate. Why did both Romney and O’Brien even have to show up?

Maybe they could have done the debate on satellite hook-up, because each one acted as if the other was not present. The questions came off an assembly line and were packaged by each candidate into a nice and clean policy statement. This way, no mistakes were made.

The sad thing is, many voters make their decisions based on these spiritless, almost lifeless debates. The debate was aimed at the television screens and the front pages of The Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. Let political discussion take a back seat, we have an image to construct! Many voters fall for this. Romney and O’Brien both accomplished their goals that Tuesday night. They escaped with their campaigns intact. They escaped with their political lives.

That Tuesday night will be repeated in the months to come in different places, and we will still call them debates. Lincoln and Douglas must be rolling over in their graves.