For months, President Joe Biden refused to say whether he would participate in regular presidential debates. Instead, Biden suggested that his own participation in this election ritual depends in part on former President Donald Trump's “actions.” Meanwhile, Trump claimed he wanted to debate Biden 10 times and issued a challenge to debate him “anytime, anywhere, anywhere.” Finally, on Wednesday, Biden proposed two debates with Trump (plus a vice presidential debate). However, the president offered certain conditions. They did not want the presidential debate to be hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates, so they held it earlier in the schedule and excluded the audience.
Eliminating the audience isn't just good for Biden, it's generally good for the republic.
Most of the changes Biden has proposed are not particularly significant. Republicans withdrew from the committee two years ago, even though some commentators made a fuss about breaking with the CPD. And operating outside the committee format is not a death knell for the debate tradition. Biden and Trump have agreed to work directly with CNN and ABC for two debates scheduled for June and September. This is much earlier than usual, and this poses a trade-off. On the other hand, election day is still far away, so fewer people may tune in. On the other hand, coverage of debates can help people start thinking about the election sooner than they otherwise would, and start activism and mobilization earlier.
The reality is that this contest is a rematch, and both candidates are so well known that it's hard to get excited about this year's debate.But there teeth One element of Biden's new debate vocabulary that is admirable and should be preserved for the future is to drive out the audience.
Earlier this week, my colleague Ryan Beckwith argued for adhering to audience tradition. He advocated keeping a live crowd, arguing it could help Biden. I respectfully disagree. Eliminating the audience is not only good for Biden, it's also generally good for the republic.
Audience reaction is Trump's north star. Mr. Trump's thirst for attention is central to his political persona and ambitions, and without a crowd to interact with, the man becomes disoriented and rudderless. President Trump was quick to accept Biden's debate terms, but was clearly disappointed at the prospect of not having an audience, telling Truth Social: “Biden is said to be afraid of crowds, but he wants to get them excited.” We would prefer a very large venue.” I don't understand. Please tell me when you will come. “Get ready for the rumble! He jokes, interrupts and attacks his interlocutors in every possible way in order to elicit a reaction from the audience and entertain his supporters. Especially that When the behavior manifests as overt bullying, it doesn't always have the support of a crowd, but it's part of what keeps Trump entrenched and focused. Without it, President Trump would be deprived of feedback on some of his key instincts and more easily relegated to the essence of policy, or lack thereof.
But this is bigger than Trump. As a general rule, debates should avoid gladiatorial formats and adopt rules that encourage candidates to clearly exchange philosophies and policies. The purpose of presidential debates is not to entertain people or garner ratings for television networks, but to inform the public about political life and enhance public decision-making. But candidates inevitably focus on eliciting live audience reactions such as applause, laughter, gasps, and jeers, which takes us away from our mission. It is an insult to serious civil society that much of the media spends so much time discussing who “won” a particular debate by gauging audience reactions. Of course, charisma and oratorical skill inevitably influence how voters perceive a candidate. But a live audience only adds to the personal rants, innuendos, and clever sophistry that distract the conversation from what's really at stake in the election. Let people react domestically and let the debate be purely about the candidates and their ideas.
Removing the audience from debates does not revolutionize debates. Gamification of debate will continue to be an issue in media and politics. But it would take the crutch away from cunning demagogues like Trump and bring us one step closer to achieving their true goals.
