When Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas in 1858, the two men held a series of public events in seven Illinois cities that attracted "droves of citizens" across the Midwest. The first candidate spoke for an hour; the second for an hour and a half; and the first again for thirty minutes to rebut his opponent. The transcripts show that they spoke uninterrupted by each other, though the crowd cheered and laughed throughout.
Imagine such a debate today, where our national candidates engage in serious discourse about serious policy. It doesn't happen. Not when a fly on the vice president's head gets the most attention.
No, the 2020 national debates haven't been worth our time. Not even the fly's.
The first event between Donald Trump and Joe Biden featured a bullying president unconstrained by the moderator and too much crosstalk, while the second debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris left questions unanswered and lies unchallenged. In both events the format didn't work: the moderators couldn't control the contenders, and the participants--especially Trump and Pence--flouted the rules established by the Commission on Presidential Debates, despite their campaigns having agreed to abide.
As soon as President Trump began speaking beyond his allotted time and interrupting Joe Biden, he should have been shut down--by either turning off his microphone or awarding extra time to his opponent. As a matter of fact, the debate shouldn't even have been allowed to begin when Trump's family and friends in the audience removed their masks, violating the Commission's rules. Karen Pence should have been escorted from the stage when she did the same. Rules are rules, and the Commission needs to enforce them.
If the final debate is to go forward, and I wish it wouldn't, we need substantive change in the format. I propose the following:
1. Ask each candidate the same questions, focused on policies and proposals, such as "Explain three specific steps you would recommend to address climate change, and, if you have none, why not?" Substitute "climate change" with other current issues--the coronavirus, the criminal justice system, health insurance, public education--you get the idea.
2. Give the first candidate three minutes to answer, the second candidate five minutes to answer and rebut, and the first candidate two minutes for a final rebuttal, alternating speaking order with each topic. Display questions on the screen the entire time so that viewers can see for themselves if candidates provide answers.
3. Support the moderator by adding a timekeeper and a fact checker. The timekeeper must have the authority and the tools to maintain control and can stop the debate if disorder breaks through. At the conclusion of each round, the fact checker will project onto a screen the most salient lies, giving thirty seconds for the contenders and audience to view. (This proposal couldn't possibly cover Donald Trump's lies, as they're all salient, but at least it's a start.)
4. Eliminate the split screen showing the opponent's face, which distracts viewers and trivializes the debate.
Even with these proposals, the upcoming debate will still give Donald Trump free air time to spew hatred and lies, which he uses to incite violence and chaos. The connection between his attacks on Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer earlier this year and the subsequent arrest of domestic terrorists who plotted to kidnap her is one recent example. Another is the role that his continued dismissal of scientific information plays in our nation's handling of the pandemic.
The format for national debates has been problematic for years. What's different now, though, is that Donald Trump has brought these events to a new low as an agitator and a liar. If his tactics can't be countered on stage, we need to ask ourselves if presidential debates today are even worth having.
No comments:
Post a Comment