Nancy Pelosi was right when she said that former Vice-President Joe Biden should not debate President Trump, for what viewers, and listeners heard, was an attempt by both the moderator, Chris Wallace and Biden to have a substantive discussion of the issues that were important to the American electorate, only to have Trump bully the proceedings in a manner that was embarrassing to watch, and a sad example to our foreign allies of the world’s foremost democracy.
Now that the president has emerged from his treatment for COVID-19 at Walter Reed Hospital, his carefully staged entry to the South Portico of the White House, and the dramatic removal of his mask, with glimpses of unmasked people in the Blue Room, it’s a sign that it is business as usual, for Trump,despite what seems to have been an urgent airlift from the White House, and dozens of staffer, allies and personnel who have shown to be positive for the virus.
Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley has called the first debate “a grotesque carnival” and it’s a safe bet that the second debate would have been much the same, since the commission tasked with the debates has considered cutting off the microphone of the candidate, if they go on too long. This, of course, would have not stopped Trump, who might have stomped around the stage, much like he did when debating Hillary Clinton in 2016.
That is all a moot point since the debate on Oct. 15 has been cancelled since the president, on Fox News berated a virtual format, and that his mic might have been turned off, and in his words:that's "not what debating's all about" and "they cut you off whenever they want."
While no one expected a replay of the Lincoln-Douglas debates or even the Kennedy-Nixon debates, what was expected was a view of Biden and Trump’s positions facing America at this critical juncture.
It’s become commonplace to acknowledge that the American electorate is largely uninformed on the issues, and that most make a gut reaction, often based on ephemeral impressions; but, at best prudential debates, in the 21st century, can help either candidate win over undecided, and or independent voters. And, in this contest, that is critical.
We appreciated what Bonnie Kristian had to say in her article for This Week: “Both latest campaign statements express the farcical notion that another debate is a needful exercise in accountability to the American people, as if these 90 minutes will expose some truth two literal lifetimes in the public eye haven't revealed. But the disagreement over format offers Trump and Biden an option of refusing to debate while insisting their hearts have no greater desire. Tuesday's veep debate could be the last we'll see this year.”
We think that she might have been on a keener and more welcome level when she noted that, “A few tough interviews or unvetted town hall questions would give voters more insight into a candidate's positions and governing skills than the debates do now.”
In our graduate school we saw a video reenactment of the Lincoln Douglas debates and the oratory aside, what impressed us most was the command of the issues of the day, and that the candidates had actually prepared for the debate, and an electorate that was educated to the issues of the day, and while the video had its drawbacks, (with the arrival of a Ford Mustang hovering in the background), the points that that the actors made, reading the actual words of these men gave credence to being informed voters.
Even a look back at John Kennedy being interviewed on the old Jack Paar show revealed a mind, and an audience that was better read, and actually cared for what the nation could look like under the direction of a future executive.
In the 21st century, debates seem more like fights in the Roman Colosseum with people cheering for and rooting and hooting over each other’s positions, and while not dissimilar of late night broadcasts of British parliamentary sessions, the latter are at least intelligible, if not amusing, with such erudite put downs that offer both humor and intelligence, where across the pond, it’s a ratings game, where blood seems to be sought after.
Then again, our unequalled namesake had this to say to ABC7 in Amarillo, Texas, "I don't ever see the debate going away. A, there's too much tradition. B, I think there is a lot of utility in it that both voters and the candidates see," said said Dr. Darrell Lovell, assistant professor of political science at West Texas A&M University
Speaking of Kennedy, it was Newton Minow, later his FCC chief, is the architect of the debates, and is the author of “Inside the Presidential Debates: Their Improbable Past and Promising Future.”
NPR News noted that “In a 1955 memo to his boss, attorney Newton Minow first suggested the idea of presidential debates. In the decades since, these debates have become some of the biggest and most influential moments in political history. And Newt, who serves on the commission that sponsors them, has watched them evolve first-hand.”
And, it is worthwhile noting that he “currently serves on the board of the Commission on Presidential Debates. He has been chairman of PBS and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama in 2016.”
In separate interviews he had this to say about Biden and Trump in their wrestling match, ““This is the first time that the candidates have not obeyed the rules,” Minow said. “They have made this opportunity to educate and serve the voters, and turned it into a totally disgusting performance in the exercise of the Democratic process.”
“I was not only distressed, I was disgusted because our purpose in having the debates is to serve the viewer, to give the viewer some valuable information before the viewer votes and instead we got a wrestling match,” he said.
With due respect to the old guard, we’d say,pull the plug, but one cannot help admire this older school of gentlemanly thought when he opined:
“Still, Minow believes in the importance of debates. They allow voters to evaluate a candidate’s ability, intellect and personality, he said, and live television creates a unique opportunity to show how candidates think on their feet and deal with the situation.”
Still a believer in the ideals of The New Frontier, it gave us pause when we read this, ““We’re not going to give up because we feel that our purpose is a very valuable purpose in a democracy and that is to give the voter the information about their choice, and that’s essential in a democracy.”
Can it be? Or do we need to wait another decade, or two?
No comments:
Post a Comment