In 1960, the debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was the first in history to be broadcast over television. Nixon, still running a fever from the flu and worn out from a long day on the campaign, meekly approached the stage pale and ill-looking. He was to face an opponent blessed with a bronze complexion and dazzling features—a model of telegenic perfection.
When the American voters were asked to judge who won the debate, those who listened over radio maintained that the debate was either a draw or a win by the more seasoned Nixon. Television audiences declared Kennedy the victor with resounding determinacy.
Debate during the general election has long since been proven to be an ineffectual pseudo-event, unlikely to sway voters that boast strong party allegiances. The events have always been less about promoting policy and more about soundbites and style.
In a contest that relies on outshining an opponent by any means necessary, it is no surprise that any semblance of rules was thrown out in favor of incessant interruptions and relentless gish gallop. The event has become one of entertainment rather than substance, and Trump knew how to cruelly deliver on Sept. 29 in Cleveland, Ohio.
Trump, who relies on victimization as a stratagem, made certain that viewers understood that moderator Chris Wallace was just as much his adversary as Biden. “I guess I’m debating you, not him, but that’s ok. I’m not surprised,” said President Trump after repeatedly disagreeing with Wallace’s assessment of the administration’s promise to repeal Obamacare.
Trump continued to flout the rules of the debate, consistently interrupting both Wallace and Biden who seemed flustered at his blatant, unpresidential disregard. At one point late in the debate, Wallace attempted to question Trump’s neglect of the accepted terms asking, “your side agreed to it, and why don’t you observe what your campaign agreed to as a ground rule?”
Everything about the modern presidential debate is a put-on and pointless. The 2020 presidential debate has been called the worst in American history, a sham and a national shame. Trump has signaled he will reject any future changes to the rules, and there have been calls to cancel future debates and avoid unsubstantial squabbles between two old white seniors.
Many felt the soul-crushing depression of watching the recent presidential debate. These broadcasts must be judged based on what they truly represent—sensationalized entertainment devoid of substance. Then, the gravity they seem to carry will be diminished to the low level deserved.
Despite their current ineptitude, debates are still not devoid of usefulness. Due to the wide viewership and expansive coverage, debates can be a worthwhile tool for candidates to provide information on their respective policies and plans. But before the Presidential debate can be taken seriously, it must be first uprooted from the non-substantive mire of showmanship it is currently entrenched in.
The solution calls for comprehensive reform of coverage, moderation and construction. To start, the penalties for rule-breaking must be addressed. Until Trump is unable to undermine agreed-upon conditions without facing severe consequences, the very structure of the debate itself is vulnerable. It will take more than a moderator criticizing his conduct well into the debate for viewers to understand the trivializing ramifications it has on the event.
Sometimes it seems hard to recognize how out of the ordinary the Trump administration has been. And considering that Trump has already labeled the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) as “partisan,” any repercussions from his misconduct are bound to be denounced by his campaign. However, if the successive debates for the general election continue as planned, Trump’s hypocrisy must be emphasized to the viewer in a perceivable way, the mirage of normalcy dissipated. If it can be done, the pseudo- of the event recognized, then debates may earn respect as a viable tool for democracy.
