The importance of political debates has been a staple of American political culture and democratic process for years, however it is evident that the presidential debate has taken a drastic step down. I asked Jacob Boling, sophomore, to give a recap on the most recent debate and what he noticed, and he said:
“It was hard to watch […] it was silly and the points they were making were pointless.”
The presidential debate has turned from a serious conversation related to the issues of a given election to a grudge match between two sides who deeply despise each other. The main issues that lead to the downfall of the presidential debate are the expectations of the audience who many of them are tuning in for entertainment rather than to be educated about campaign’s views of political issues, the opponents use the space as a speaking point rather than an argument point, and the candidates in the debate have lost respect for each other and each other’s campaigns.
Humans love to watch sports because they are unpredictable and entertaining, and that love for the wild back and forth bleeds into what people want to see in debates. While talking to Jeff Gall, history department co-chair and upper school history teacher, we discussed the historical changes in the debate and the people watching. Gall said:
“They’ve become less focused on issues and more focussed on personality […] We live in a media obsessed society that focuses more on personality based issues.”
As a media based society we focus on what we want to see, and in a debate the majority of people watching want to see something funny happen like a moment of anger between the two candidates. Gall said:
“The problem is us […] People look at debates as another form of entertainment, and another form of pro wrestling. And the people laugh about it […] the politicians are giving us what we want.”
When it comes to issues regarding content in the debate the common denominator is the viewer.
Along with that another main issue is that when it comes to what is said in the debate the candidates have an issue with actually responding to the question at hand. Gall said:
“The weakness of debates now is that the campaigns use them as mini talking points.”
Instead of debating deeply about the issues in the country, the candidates decide to use these “mini talking points” as a way of saying something they could say at a rally in front of a larger crowd. In order to see this fault in its entirety you must look back on the history of debates and see the senate debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. When asked about the 1858 debate Gall responded:
“They asked deep questions about each other and they went on for hours. It’s all about just sound bites and quick responses to a reporter’s questions. And you get very little interaction between the two candidates themselves unless it’s calling each other names.”
It is clear that the issue is there and it is easy to notice when looking back to the past.
Another issue is loss of respect between candidates debating, as one might recall Lincoln and Douglas had a very respectful argument and never strayed off, but were also able to remain calm and maintain mutual respect for one another. Other than the Lincoln Douglas example, another positive instance when candidates respected each other was during the 2008 presidential election when John McCain was asked if Americans could trust Obama because he was an Arab. McCain responded by saying:
“No ma’am. He’s a decent family man citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.”
It is clear that even up to 2008 there has been respect in previous debates, so I asked Gall where it all started, and in response he said:
“Donald Trump broke a lot of the norms when it came to politics […] Led to a downward spiral in civil discourse, and the other side has been affected by his tactics.”
Trump who is a business man brought a whole new side to politics and that is evident in the ways he has changed the debate.
Many believe that debates would be more organized if there were moderators who act as referees or officials who keep the candidates on task. While yes there are moderators it must be noted that in the most recent debate Kamala Harris and Donald Trump the moderators were biased in constantly fact checking Trump when not they were not supposed to. This even happened again in the JD Vance and Tim Walz debate where Vance said:
“The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check […] And since you are fact-checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on.”
Not only are viewers feeling the potential bias against candidates, but they themselves are feeling the bias and are openly against it.
Another rebuttal is that they are answering the questions, and that is just false. A clip from the 2024 debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden went viral where they debated each other’s golf skills rather than the question at hand. The question that was asked was about his capabilities to serve his whole second term that will end when he is 82. Trump immediately said:
“I just won two club championships, not even senior, two regular championships. To do that you have to be quite smart and you have to be able to hit the ball a long way, and I do it. He can’t do it. He can’t hit a ball 50 yards.”
Obviously this has nothing to do with the question and he is just using his chance to talk in order to poke fun at his opponent. It is not only clear that the candidates are not asking questions, but are also showing little respect towards each other.
A third argument against my claim is that respect does not matter. This is just not true, respect matters because the behavior displayed by candidates trickles down into everyday life. The reason why some Americans struggle to work with each other is because of the pattern exemplified by our country’s leaders in debates. While Gall is quick to point out the flaws of our system he is ultimately hopeful we can return to a more respectful time. Gall said:
“I long for the day when we have people of different political views who can have mutual respect, and really disagree in a way that honors the fact that both sides are Americans and love their country.”
It is evident that people are tired of the disrespectful banter and want to go back to actually learning about a campaign and what they want to do to solve issues, and the only reason why the banter is happening is because of disrespect.
In order to solve this issue we need to mute mics of candidates when they are talking, and we also need real non biased moderators. I understand it was said that the mics at the most recent debate were going to be able to be muted, but that still didn’t stop the moderators from abusing their place in power and letting the candidates speak over each other. The moderator problem is mainly that they are too involved. The only thing a moderator should be doing is making sure the candidates stay on task, and not questioning and teaming up on certain candidates over the other. These changes need to be implemented as soon as possible so that as a country we can make sure we are voting in the best possible option to be our president.
Let’s shut down the circus that the debate has turned into, and hold our leaders accountable to debating well.
