Election cycle after election cycle, voters and non-voters alike tune in with glee to observe the latest iteration of the best non-pay-per-view boxing match available on TV — namely, the U.S. presidential debates. Lincoln and Douglas, in their seminal 1858 debate series, were able to set out their points in a lengthy and expository fashion without interruption from the other candidate. As viewers of the most recent few debates are aware, that style of debate has long since gone out of fashion; for instance, Donald Trump interrupted Hillary Clinton 25 times in 26 minutes during the first debate. Debates in the contemporary political world are held not so much as to educate the voters on the issues, but rather to bring entertainment value.
This constant stream of interruptions, pithy putdowns and abrasive invectives that the American public has been subject to over the past few weeks is an insult to the purpose of the debates, and serves as a bad example for discourse throughout the nation. The current debate system is setup to display the major candidates more prominently, according to Open Debates, a non-partisan activist organization. The public has a right to a more inquisitorial and probing debate format for our presidential candidates, where each person in the running to become president has the same chance at capturing the public’s attention through policy.
Eighty-four million Americans — the most ever — watched the first presidential debate at Hofstra in late September. While that figure may be good for the TV networks sponsoring the debate, it’s rather less encouraging for the millions of Americans who did not care for the constant “zingers” and “put-downs” that were eagerly collected by political pundits across the nation. Politics isn’t so much a reality show as it is a way for voters to understand the positions of people who are trying to be elected. In an election cycle where so much is at stake, focusing on the wittiness of candidates’ remarks is distracting at best and utterly counterproductive at worst, unless the primary focus is instead on ratings.
However, it should not surprise anyone that the debates are set up in a way to sensationalize and draw attention to political campaigns. The chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee founded the Commission on Presidential Debates, or CPD, after the 1984 election in order to display their candidates prominently and openly. Whatever Democrats and Republicans may disagree on, both political machines have a deep craving for ever-increasing publicity.
What is less known is that the League of Woman Voters, a nonpartisan civic organization, was the former sponsor of the presidential debates. The official news release by the league after abandoning their sponsorship of the debates is prescient in its warnings, decrying the tight control of the debates by the campaigns themselves and stating that their refusal to participate stemmed from their refusal to “perpetuate a fraud on the American voter.” Since the release of that newsletter in 1988, the American people have been continuously subject to a publicity charade masquerading as education.
There is still no appropriate forum for the American public to engage with candidates in an open, spontaneous and non-partisan way. The Center for Public Integrity lays out how the CPD is beholden only to its corporate sponsors and to the two parties that run its proceedings, notably not including the average American voter. This does not stop voters from tuning into debates and believing they are watching fair, hard-hitting coverage of both candidates in a neutral environment.
Presidential debates should return to being hosted by an independent commission that can vary the format according with the suggestions of both the public and a non-partisan committee of experts. Turning the debates away from the barbs and towards substance would help the average American voter glean more than just the candidates’ capacity for insults on-stage: a more rigorous, challenging debate for the candidates could bring forth more issues that matter to the American public, such as climate change. Uncomfortable issues that are nevertheless critical to the future of our nation should not be excluded from the debates. An independent debate commission could remedy this problem by enforcing harder-hitting, more accurate debates.
Creating a more concrete set of guidelines for moderator performance during the debates can further reinforce the centrality of policy on the debate stage. During this election cycle’s debates, Lester Holt in particular came under fire for allowing the candidates to walk all over his “moderation” whereas Chris Wallace’s performance was widely praised. This degree of variability should not be present within the debates: ensuring each moderator asks hard-hitting, substantive questions towards all candidates on stage can help the public gain a true understanding of what politicians stand for, rather than allowing them to stand on their soapboxes unchallenged.
Watching the debates in their current incarnation and claiming to be an educated voter about the issues is like watching Shark Tank and claiming to know about entrepreneurship. What the public is currently receiving is a watered-down publicity stunt, designed by people with a vested interest in keeping others out of their turf. When purchasing products in the marketplace, everyone understands that only listening to what the salesman says can lead to buyers being swindled. We should not accept the same level of chicanery in our debates.
Eric Xu is a Viewpoint writer.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: A defense of the Batten Curve
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoStandardization is an important idea in a school to make grading as fair as possible — all inconsistencies in teaching assistants or exam writing are ironed out.
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | December 23, 2024Addiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | December 20, 2024At the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
