Sometimes a debate is not really a debate

This column was published by the Wilson Times Aug. 10, 2019,

I watched all four episodes of a program called the Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate held in the past two months. I lost sleep I will never recover and came away with a few impressions of the people who want to replace President Donald Trump.

The greater impression, however, was that this entire series was over-blown, poorly presented and not particularly helpful to voters. Although these debates were promoted as a chance for voters to “meet the candidates,” in their presentation, the debates aimed more at entertaining voters than enlightening them. Nowhere was this more evident than in the “introduction” of the ten candidates to be presented in the last two episodes, which were presented by CNN. The network had each of the 10 candidates each night enter the stage from behind a curtain, as if they were competing in the Miss America Pageant. The candidates got to smile and wave at the audience, who cheered while precious minutes of the program’s two hours were wasted.

The debate monitors tried to limit the candidates to one-minute responses to sometimes complex questions and invited other candidates to critique the responses from other candidates. It seemed obvious the monitors tried to foment controversy among the candidates, creating TV-perfect excitement. The monitors also seemed to have their favorites among the candidates and called on the same candidates over and over while other candidates were largely ignored. The network seemed to want the loudest, most persistent, most extreme candidates on camera.

Although both networks airing the debates (CNN and NBC) were rewarded with controversies, provocative statements and personal attacks live on-stage, the script did not benefit typical voters, nor did it meet the definition of a debate as a “formal discussion on a particular topic …” Usually, a debate is between two individuals or two teams, one taking the affirmative and the other the negative side of a resolution. With 10 individuals on stage and the monitors tossing out questions that are aimed at creating controversy and division, rather than understanding, there is no formal debate.

Americans have been intrigued with presidential debates since the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates, the first ever aired live on television. Kennedy is credited with winning that one-on-one debate, but Nixon didn’t lose by much in a showdown determined as much by style and “optics” as by policy and debating points.

Since 1960, with few exceptions, presidential nominees and even vice-presidential nominees, have debated regularly on television. The 2016 Republican debates and this year’s debates provide an argument that the “presidential debates” are no longer worthwhile. In 2016, Donald Trump bullied his way to the GOP nomination by insulting other candidates and making impossible promises based on his “only I can do this” theme. This year’s 23 Democratic candidates tend to be a blur before voters, who can hardly keep up with the names of two dozen candidates, much less their political policies or opinions.

It’s time to provide a service that is useful for voters. Instead of presenting a beauty contest or hollerin’ contest, the networks should fulfill their obligation to serve the public by providing each candidate a reasonable amount of free 15 to 30 minutes in prime time to present their beliefs and policies to voters. The networks and candidates could select the topics for each segment, and candidates would have to stick to that topic or their pre-recorded presentation would be shortened. Corporations could “sponsor” debates on an all-or-none basis but would not be able to run commercials.

Would voters tune in to watch one candidate lay out his/her vision for America with no opportunity for belittling or backstabbing? I hope that as large a percentage of American adults would watch these programs as watched the last episode of “Friends,” but that may be asking too much.