The pros and cons of presidential debates
Dear readers:
What good are presidential debates? That鈥檚 a longstanding U.S. political argument that鈥檚 going to be turbocharged by the chaotic first debate between Joe Biden and President Donald Trump.
Neither side of this argument pretends the modern debates are 鈥渄ebates鈥�, per se. The question is more nuanced: In today鈥檚 entertainment-saturated age, are televised dual interviews of the candidates in which they respond to and try to belittle each other of value to voters, most of whom have already made up their minds?
The 鈥減ro鈥� side of the debate about debates often emphasizes their role as a symbol of democracy. There is virtue in making the candidates stand together and respond to moderators who are at their best, representing average citizens. It鈥檚 a norm of the American system that should be respected.
In addition, they are deadlines of a sort, forcing candidates to take and explain policy positions and their overall agenda.
鈥淭hink of it like the State of the Union address,鈥� , a senior fellow at Georgetown University鈥檚 Government Affairs Institute earlier this week.
The 鈥渃on鈥� side of the debate says that the contribution of debates to civic virtue is overrated. While they鈥檙e framed as sacred rituals they鈥檙e promoted as entertainment. Media commentators treat them as partisan competition while making arbitrary judgements of who 鈥渨on鈥� and 鈥渓ost鈥�, often based on performative criteria.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a mistake to focus too much on issues of personal demeanor at the expense of rhetorical substance 鈥� how something was said, rather than what was said,鈥�
Here鈥檚 where Tuesday鈥檚 debate comes in. Yes, the interruptions and insults, primarily from President Trump, were hard to ignore. They have dominated news coverage of the event. But behind the hand-waving were some clear policy differences,
President Trump clearly differed with Mr. Biden over judges and the Affordable Care Act. He said little about climate change and defended ending fuel economy standards because 鈥渢he car is much less expensive鈥�. He declined to clearly condemn a white supremacist group.
鈥淭he point of a debate is to compare the candidates for the job they鈥檙e asking us to give them. And they differed pretty clearly on what they would do with the next four years,鈥� Mr. Inskeep tweeted.
Let us know what you鈥檙e thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.
