The father of televised presidential debates was Newton Minow, who, as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission under President John F. Kennedy, famously described television as a “vast wasteland.” But years earlier, as an adviser to Illinois governor and presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson, Newton had made the case for debates, which Stevenson supported and helped bring about for the first time in 1960 with the Nixon-Kennedy debates.
After a 16-year hiatus, the Ford-Carter debates were revived in 1976, with Minow's active involvement. To institutionalize the debates, leaders of both parties subsequently agreed to create a bipartisan organization to make them a regular feature of elections. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was created under Minow's leadership in 1987. Since 1988, the Commission has sought to make debates a fundamental part of elections by building on the three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate, conducting general election debates, usually on college campuses, and conducting a series of events and programs involving students, faculty, and numerous foreign dignitaries and observers. The Commission was a catalyst for the creation of debate commissions in many countries, including emerging democracies.
Debate International, which represents 40 democracies and emerging democracies, said in a statement about the commission:1:
CPD does more than just organize debates. The Commission establishes standards of integrity and professionalism that inspire debate organizers around the world. CPD's commitment to transparency and participatory democracy reaches beyond U.S. borders. It provides a model to follow for emerging and strong democracies alike.
CPD debates are a testament to the power of democracy, providing a neutral and accessible platform to ensure that the electoral process reflects the will of the American people. This platform has been key to building stronger democracies around the world, encouraging leaders and citizens to value and defend electoral transparency.
I have participated in presidential debate CPD programs at several times over the years: University of Massachusetts Boston in 2000, University of Miami in 2004, Hofstra University in 2012, and University of Nevada, Las Vegas in 2016. My wife, son, and I also attended the first presidential debate in Cleveland in 2020. CPD has also been instrumental in supporting the summer debate camps sponsored by the Matthew Harris Ornstein Foundation for Washington, DC-area public school students, including having students use the actual podium used by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012 at the first camp in 2015.
The experience in Cleveland was certainly traumatic. The committee and the Cleveland Clinic had strict COVID-19 protocols in place. Attendees were tested that morning and got their results that afternoon. It was full-scale testing, not instantaneous. The crowd was small, the seats spaced out, and there was good ventilation. Masks were required. We sat in the bleachers not far from where the Trump entourage had entered, sat down, and removed our masks. When the Cleveland Clinic doctors went up to them, the Trump family and staff, and asked them to follow the protocols, they were metaphorically given the middle finger and were defiant. Trump’s congressional guests, including Jim Jordan and Marsha Blackburn, were happy to walk around maskless and flout the rules. And we later learned to our horror that Trump had tested positive for COVID-19 before the debate. This was a vile and reckless violation of the rules and standards.
Many criticized the committee for allowing this blunder to happen. But as I sat there, I realized that Trump and his guests put the committee in a no-win situation. First, they accepted the Trump campaign's assurances that Trump and others had been tested and were negative. In fact, they had not arrived early enough for the clinic to administer clinical tests. And if representatives from the Cleveland Clinic had tried to turn Trump and his party away just before the debate was about to begin, that could have been used by Trump to undermine the entire debate process.
Of course, there was the debate itself. Trump yelled, yelled, interrupted, lied, continued talking long after his allotted speaking time was up, and bullied moderator Chris Wallace. But watching the debate afterwards, rather than the live moments that made me sick to my stomach, two things stood out. First, while Trump was ranting and evading, viewers, i.e. voters, saw Biden calm, collected, and in control of the issues. Second, it was a defining moment. When Chris Wallace asked Trump about white supremacist groups, particularly the Proud Boys, Trump defended them, delivering a message to “stand back and stand by.” When January 6 happened and the Proud Boys were at the center of a violent riot, Trump’s debate remarks further directly linked him to the effort to overturn the election results.
Like many others, I have my own criticisms of the debate structure: the questioners should be experts, not well-known journalists, however competent, who do not have the depth to double-double the candidates' shallow claims and refute all false statements and distortions. Also, the moderator must obviously have the ability to cut off the microphone of any candidate who breaks the rules by interrupting his opponent or talking well beyond the allotted time.
The two debates that Trump and Biden agreed to hold outside the purview of the commission might work out, at least with ground rules allowing for microphone cutting (assuming Trump shows up with impunity for threatening the moderator and his opponent). But moving away from the accomplished bipartisan group that has run the debates in the past nine presidential elections would remove any guarantee that the debates would remain a regular, institutionalized feature of the election. Without a structure in place up front, candidates would be more likely to avoid the debates. It would also remove the connections that other countries have relied on to recognize the legitimacy of the debates, and the value of the debates and the programs that go with them to college campuses, students, and many others.
Despite their flaws, debates provide an opportunity to learn the candidates' perspectives, which is especially valuable for voters who generally have little or no interest in politics. And for those of us who work in politics, debates are often enlightening. We should work with the Commission to reform the process and make debates better, but we can be sure that we will regret it in the future if the CPD disappears.
