Debates must not be derailed
Roughly one month away from the first scheduled presidential debate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D.Calif., told reporters she doesn’t think there should be presidential debates.
“I do not think that the president of the United States has comported himself in a way that anybody should that has any association with truth, evidence, data and facts,” she said.
She can’t be serious. President Donald Trump regularly says things that either aren’t true or bend the truth. However, this is no reason to disavow public debates, which provide voters the opportunity to witness candidates address each other directly rather than through shadowy, specious advertising campaigns and hyperbolic rallying cries to their respective bases.
Since the first televised presidential debate in 1960, the debates have been about far more than a candidate’s honesty, which is one of many criteria by which the public judges a candidate. They have been a forum to air ideas and policy platforms, to match wits and win over hearts and minds.
True, they have drifted away from such high- minded origins.
Debates lately have been more about showmanship and platitudes and winning audience applause than engaging thoughtfully with substantive issues.
In this sense, social distancing requirements and the lack of a live audience would benefit the efficacy of the event, forcing both candidates to focus on moderator questions and each other rather than scoring plaudits from spectators.
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has repeatedly said he’s up to the challenge and intends to “be a fact- checker from the floor.”
Given his stance on moving forward with the debates, Ms. Pelosi’s comments seem more misdirective than sincere, perhaps an attempt to recast the debate around Mr. Trump’s honesty rather than Mr. Biden’s skills as a debater. ( He was generally lackluster in the primary debates prior to his nomination.)
But perhaps a more equable, stable performance from Mr. Biden will best highlight the differences between himself and the more bellicose Mr. Trump.
While we could simply dismiss Ms. Pelosi’s posturing, it’s always worth harking back to the purpose and possibility of the presidential debates. Even with the country’s current levels of polarization, it would be foolish to think that minds can’t be changed or some undecideds coaxed off the fence.
Both parties must remain committed to the debates.