There should not even have been a
debate about the debate.
All this haggling about procedures and hot mics and notecards should hardly be necessary. This is a debate, and debates already have rules
and procedures.
High-school debate teams seem to have no trouble adhering to them, but not the adults
running for President of the United States.
The reason the debate rules are being debated at all is simple. It is because presidential candidates cannot be
trusted to have the maturity to practice good manners or debate civilly like the rest of us have every reason to expect, or at least hope for.
I realize that
ship sailed long ago. I have only to peruse the TV Blogs I have written here about televised presidential debates since 2016 to see that our so-called debates have long been devolving into
out-of-control, schoolyard free-for-alls.
advertisement
advertisement
But every four years, it bears mentioning again. The upcoming ABC News Trump-Harris debate that will take place
September 10 in Philadelphia should never have been preceded by all of this song and dance.
Instead, the two
campaigns should have simply said, “OK, let’s have a debate,” without any subsequent back-and-forth about rules because the rules that have long governed debates are already
self-evident.
Even prizefights have rules. Championship boxers understand this even if a gloved fist slips below the belt every once in a while.
Boxers do not bargain for new rules before they fight. The rules are already in place. They are understood and accepted
by everybody.
But not in our national politics. In this presidential race, as in all of them, the fate of the world is at stake, not a championship
belt.
If you are keeping score so far in this TV Blog, professional boxers and teens have been shown to be more mature and more likely to follow rules
that have long been established than presidential candidates.
But when it comes to politics, this is how our news media and our electorate prefer it to
be.
Everything is entertainment now. The debates are just another diversion to watch on TV or our smartphones, and then join in the national conversation on
social media, which is not a “conversation” at all -- nor, for that matter, “social.”
As I understand them, the traditional rules of
debate procedure and comportment include listening respectfully to one’s opponent, speaking when it is one’s turn to speak, abiding by agreed-upon time limits on the lengths of answers and
statements, and perhaps most importantly, addressing the issues or topics that a moderator has asked to be addressed.
Presidential candidates routinely
violate all of these rules. Instead, they prefer to ignore discussions of real issues in favor of launching personal attacks because their campaigns believe the attacks play better on TV.
These televised presidential debates would also be greatly aided by moderators who could restrain themselves from playing gotcha journalism with the
candidates.
The presidential debate participants should not have to be put in the position to defend their positions, but merely to explain them.
Instead, the journos frame their questions like rebukes, requesting that the candidates explain what they said on any number of subjects last Tuesday.
All a moderator really has to do is say something like, “Now, let’s discuss [fill in blank with a hot-button issue such as immigration, for example]. Each of
you will have three minutes to share your views on this subject.”
In theory, it is really rather simple. So why can’t it be this way? What on
Earth has happened to us?