Was this the nadir of our public life?

The first debate between Joe Biden and President Donald Trump was clarifying.

One candidate earned the grade of B, maybe aC. The other burned down the schoolhouse. One candidate urged Americans to vote. The other urged his whitenationalist extremist supporters to "stand back and stand by" for action. One candidate attempted to talk about health care and COVID -19. The other alleged a deepstate plot involving the Obamas and the Clintons to undermine his power.

I could go on. But you get the picture. Trying to compare Biden and Trump is like comparing apples and existentialism. Biden is a fairly typical, modestly gifted politician. Trump is a once-in-a-lifetime threat to the future of the republic.

I have needed a stiff drink after some presidential debates, including some I helped the candidate prepare for. Before Tuesday night, I had never required a pint of hand sanitizer and a moment of prayer for the fate of the country.

Actually, my purification ritual was to rewatch the initial debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960 — the first ever on live television. Take an hour, if you can, and watch it. You’ll see not only a different era but also a different political culture. The idea of democratic norms can sound abstract. The Kennedy-nixon debate incarnated them.

First, there was an expectation of argument based on evidence. Yes, the candidates were judged on performance (to Nixon’s detriment). But the purpose of the debate was not primarily performative. Rather, it was to make the case for a certain set of policies, which differ from those of the other party based on a certain set of principles. Some of the discussion was yawn-inducing. But it gave voters an accurate picture of principled disagreement, particularly on the proper role of government in a free society.

Second, there was the assumption of goodwill. Both men took for granted that the other was seeking the good of the country.

Third, there was the conviction that public service is a high calling. Both men saw the presidency as an office involving sobering burdens and high ambitions. In the decades since the Cold War ended, the stakes of American politics have sometimes seemed lower — low enough for voters to select a raging con man. But then came COVID -19, economic chaos and erupting demands for racial equality, and the trivial choice for president has

been revealed as a disastrous one.

Fourth, there was the disciplined practice of civility. In private, Kennedy and Nixon were hardly mutual fans. But they did not view persuasion as a function of volume or rudeness as a sign of passion. This was the reflection of a broad social expectation about proper conduct in formal political events, and a broad social stigma against extravagant public idiocy.

This might seem an exercise in nostalgia. But these norms are a guide to the restoration of our politics. There is at least the possibility that a public life that is plummeting into cruelty and crudity will hit bottom and rebound. If the Trump-biden debate does not constitute that bottom, God help us all.