The Biden and Trump campaigns agreed to two presidential debates last week. Who among us can contain our excitement?
Well, it depends on what you mean by “we”. In my corner of the professional world, pundits, commentators, and political geeks were having a lot of fun. Watching Sunday's show, you could be forgiven for thinking that church bells must have been ringing across the country to celebrate the news, as if a medieval queen had given birth to a male heir. There's a debate going on! There's a debate going on! Huzza!
Meanwhile, among ordinary people, that sound you never heard was one that the hordes of humanity shrugged off. A smaller portion of the population may be letting out the same groan you get when you find out you got a middle seat on a plane.
There are no polls to back this up, but most Americans probably don't think of the prospect of Donald Trump and Joe Biden yelling at each other like two exhausted old men arguing over a check at a Denny's. I think. Oh, really? Are you doing this again?
I can see why journalists and drug addicts are so excited. First, presidential debates raise the profile of journalists and give them ample opportunity to talk loudly about the important role of the Fourth Estate in a democracy. It's also perfect for increasing viewership. His first absolutely awful debate of 2020 was watched by 73 million people.
Dramas in which politicians offer unscripted (though often rehearsed) answers to complex questions have the Super Bowl-like quality for political geeks. Hearing from either of the current potential candidates is like watching a race car driver behind the wheel of a car with no brakes, which only adds to the excitement. There's always a certain dark allure to the possibility of a spectacular clash, and in the Trump-Biden matchup, one is certain.
Forgotten in all the fuss over the latest debate agreements is the fact that nearly all presidential debates are boring, counterproductive spectacles.
Debate talk is often somewhat tautological. People say that because we've had presidential debates before, we need another one. But that's not true.
The first presidential debate took place in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon (Biden and Trump were 17 and 14 years old, respectively, at the time). The only thing anyone remembers about the Kennedy-Nixon debate is the first one. Legend has it that Nixon lost because he didn't wear makeup, didn't shave, and was sweating. Legend has it that those who heard the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won, but those who watched it on television were so impressed by Kennedy's sophisticated style and good looks that they thought he had won. Nixon, thin and exhausted in his first appearance, was rested, heavily made up, and won the next two debates, but no one remembers them.
In other words, the lesson from the beginning is, and always has been, that style is more important than content.
We believe that because we have been told time and time again that televised debates convey important information to voters. However, television often subconsciously makes certain information seem more important than it really is. For example, in most presidential elections, the taller candidate wins. Does height have any correlation to good policy?
There's a reason FDR hid his wheelchair from public view. However, while there is no shortage of substantive criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, his contracting polio is not one of them.
Clearly, a television presence is part of the modern president's job description. But a televised presidential debate elevates that credentials beyond all reason. Yes, yes, the president must have good communication skills. But they never expected to argue with political opponents for 90 minutes in front of millions of people during their actual presidential terms.
In other words, the political skills we are testing are not the political skills needed for the job. Candidates who lie forcefully, confidently, or amusingly are often rewarded in debates, while candidates who tell the truth awkwardly, hesitantly, or with moderate complexity are often penalized.
The network's regularly run discussion “highlights” are full of one-liners, gaffes and falsehoods, often treated as if they were truth by sympathetic journalists. But I've never seen a truly thoughtful explanation of the national debt or any other serious issue celebrated as a great moment in debate history.
The possibility of a rematch between Biden and Trump in particular may make you wonder, “Really?” But the truth is that all presidential debates have the same value.
