The Biden and Trump campaigns agreed to two presidential debates last week. Who among us can contain our emotion?
Well, it depends on what you mean by “we.” In my corner of the professional world (experts, commentators, political junkies) there was much rejoicing. Watching the Sunday programmes, you could be forgiven for thinking that church bells must have rung to celebrate the news across the country, as if some medieval queen had given birth to a male heir. Debates are happening! Debates are happening! Hurrah!
Meanwhile, among normal people, that unheard sound was that of the great mass of humanity shrugging their shoulders. A smaller segment of the population is likely to let out an involuntary groan of the kind emitted when you discover you have a middle seat on an airplane.
I don't have polls to back this up, but I suspect most Americans would view the prospect of Donald Trump and Joe Biden yelling at each other like two old men fighting over the check at a Denny's with resigned weariness. Ugh, really? Are we going to do this again?
Now I understand why journalists and addicts are excited. For starters, presidential debates inflate journalists' egos, giving them ample opportunities to talk grandiosely about the important role of the fourth estate in democracy. They're also great for ratings: the absolutely terrible first debate of 2020 was watched by 73 million people.
The drama of politicians offering spontaneous, if often rehearsed, answers to complicated questions has a Super Bowl-like quality for political nerds. That hearing any of the current presumptive nominees speak is like watching a racing driver behind the wheel of a vehicle with no brakes just adds to the excitement. The prospect of a spectacular clash always has a certain dark appeal, and in a showdown between Trump and Biden, clashes are guaranteed.
Lost amid the hubbub over the latest debate agreement is the fact that almost all presidential debates are tedious and counterproductive spectacles.
The arguments in favor of debates are often somewhat tautological. We supposedly need to have presidential debates because we've always had presidential debates. But this is not true.
The first presidential debates, between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, were in 1960 (when Biden and Trump were, respectively, 17 and 14 years old). The only thing everyone remembers about the Kennedy-Nixon debates is the first one, which Nixon lost. according to the tradition, because I was without makeup, unshaven and sweaty. Again, according to tradition, people who heard the debate on the radio thought Nixon won, while people who watched it on television were so impressed by Kennedy's smooth style and good looks that they thought he won. Nixon, who was underweight and exhausted during his first appearance, got some rest and put on proper makeup and won the next two debatesthat no one remembers.
In other words, the lesson all along was that style was more important than substance. It has always been like this.
We believe, in part because we are told over and over again, that televised debates convey important information to voters. But television makes certain information seem more important than it is, often subliminally. For example, in most presidential elections, the tallest candidate wins. Does height somehow correlate with superior policies?
There is a reason FDR hid his wheelchair from public view. But while I have a host of substantive criticisms of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the fact that he had polio is not among them.
Obviously, a television presence is part of the job description of modern presidents. But the televised presidential debates magnify that rating beyond all reason. Yes, yes, presidents must be good communicators. But at no point during their actual presidencies are they expected to argue with a political enemy for 90 minutes in front of millions of people.
The political skills we are testing are not the political skills the job requires. The candidate who lies forcefully, confidently, or playfully is usually rewarded in debates, while the candidate who tells the truth clumsily, hesitantly, or with appropriate complexity is usually penalized.
The debate highlights that the networks routinely broadcast are filled with one-liners, gaffes and falsehoods that sympathetic journalists often treat as true. But I've never seen a truly thoughtful explanation of the national debt or other serious issue celebrated as a great moment in the history of the debate.
The prospect of a rematch between Biden and Trump especially deserves a “Ugh, really?” But the truth is that all presidential debates deserve the same.
