Debates: A Mandatory Requirement for Political Candidates?
In recent years, the requirement for political debates has become a topic of debate itself, with some arguing that it should be mandatory, while others believe it should remain optional. The 2020 US presidential debates, involving Joe Biden and Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump and Mike Pence, highlighted the issues with debates and their impact on the electorate. This article explores the pros and cons of making debates a mandatory requirement for political candidates.
The Case for Mandating Debates
Mandating debates can ensure that all candidates have the opportunity to present their policies and visions to the public. This can help voters make informed decisions by allowing them to compare the different candidates' stances on key issues. Additionally, debates provide a forum for candidates to address the pressing concerns of the electorate, which can influence public perception and engagement.
The Case for Keeping Debates Optional
One of the main arguments against mandatory debates is that it can be challenging to change the laws governing eligibility for office to make such debates mandatory. Furthermore, keeping debates optional allows voters to choose whether or not to watch them, taking into account the individual performances and the candidates' readiness for such interactions. In the 2020 US general election, for instance, former President Donald Trump famously barred then-Vice President Joe Biden from participating, leading to debates being optional and voter choice playing a significant role.
Reasons for Non-Participation
Prevailing Misinformation and Lies: Under former President Donald Trump's tenure, misinformation and lies became a hallmark of the administration. Current Vice President Kamala Harris, who opposed Trump's falsehoods, might reasonably argue that there is no point in debating someone who consistently misleads the public. In fact, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has advocated for Biden not to participate in debates given Trump's history of spreading misinformation.
Public Image and Perception: The presence of a lesser-known or less persuasive candidate in a debate can dilute the perceived importance of the debate. In the 1972 presidential election, President Richard Nixon strategically avoided debates with George McGovern, painting the latter as a radical who would be detrimental to the country. However, the absence of a face-to-face confrontation allowed Nixon's portrayal to stick, contributing to McGovern's defeat.
Debates and Public Speaking Skills
Political debates may not always be dominated by highly skilled public speakers. For instance, former President Donald Trump’s debating skills are often criticized, focusing more on bluntness and less on strategic argumentation. On the other hand, Joe Biden’s performance in recent debates has been seen as somewhat erratic and flustered, leading to discussions about his suitability for such high-pressure interactions. Some political analysts have even suggested that Biden might be better off skipping debates to avoid potential magnification of his mistakes.
Historical Examples of Effective Debates
Notable debates can still showcase the power of well-prepared and articulate candidates. For example, during the 1988 Democratic primary between Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale, Mondale thought he might score points by criticizing Reagan's age. Reagan, with his characteristic wit, countered with a clever statement that altered the trajectory of the debate. Similarly, during the 1993 Vice Presidential debates, Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen displayed excellent oratory skills when he confronted Dan Quayle's comparison to John F. Kennedy, leaving a lasting impression on the public.
It’s interesting to note that strong performances can elevate a candidate's profile, while weaker ones can harm their reputation. During the 2020 debates, Trump's bluntness and Biden's occasional flustered demeanor made it clear that debates can be pivotal in shaping public perception of a candidate's suitability for the role.
The NY Times and Beto O'Rourke
As noted, some prominent figures, including the New York Times, have called for a questioning of the debate format itself. In a recent article, Beto O'Rourke, a former U.S. Representative, suggested that debates are a red herring, stating that they are just a "policy sitcom" rather than a serious examination of candidates' manifestos. This sentiment is echoed by many who believe that debates should not be the primary focus of the electoral process.
Conclusion
Ultimately, whether debates should be a mandatory requirement for political candidates remains a nuanced debate. While debates can provide valuable insights into candidates' policies and personal characteristics, they also can be subject to misrepresentation and misinterpretation. As we move into the future, it might be wise to continue to evaluate the role of debates in modern politics and explore new ways to enhance the democratic process.