The presidential debates are not so presidential, and they’re not really debates either. We call them “debates,” and maybe they were at one point in time. But in this age of reality TV and social media, they resemble the Hunger Games more than real policy discussions of the issues Americans care about.
For all their criticism of the bitterness consuming the 2016 Republican primary cycle, the Democrats have sure seemed happy enough to hop on that bandwagon. The first set of primary debates in June focused more on stunts and jabs at candidates’ pasts than anything resembling a concrete policy platform for the party, and there’s no sign that this week’s debates will be any different.
It’s clear our current presidential debate system is both harmful and flawed. If we’re not going to do away with debates altogether, we at least need to seriously rethink the way they are now.
Both the 2016 and 2020 elections have demonstrated the absurdity of the current system. Networks put roughly a dozen candidates on stage. They give candidates under a minute to answer complex policy questions that really require comprehensive answers, and moderators watch and listen while candidates yell at each other and interrupt. Not to mention, the moderators of most debates as well as the networks hosting them are usually highly partisan.
It is ridiculous to expect actual policy discussions to occur under these conditions. With limited speaking time, candidates will either resort to political clichés, yell at each other, or contrive a catchy or outlandish policy position that will draw media coverage and attention. And considering barely more than a quarter of Americans watched the June Democratic debates, it’s clear many voters aren’t interested in seeing our elections become political reality TV.
By helping candidates who speak for shock value and attention, the debate system actively hurts those who instead rely heavily on their policies to garner support. Candidates who launch personal diatribes at other candidates directly insult the ones who actually come prepared to debates with policy plans. In this case, the debate system is harmful to the Democratic Party as a whole as it struggles to come up with a defining platform.
We’d like to think the debates are entertainment television and nothing more, but in 2016 they were directly consequential. They undeniably rewarded Donald Trump with the Republican nomination. He was distinguishable, entertaining, and stimulated voters — the other candidates were not, and did not. It’s hypocritical, then, of Democratic candidates to criticize the style of Republicans in 2016 when most of them have adopted the same strategy in this cycle.
So what’s to be done?
For one, stronger qualifications to gain debate entry must be established. Having more than 10 candidates on stage leads to the aggressiveness too commonly seen in debates. If parties refuse to tighten qualification standards, networks simply must refuse to feature upwards of 10 candidates on stage. Debates should occur in groups of five or six candidates at most, and candidates should be given longer to answer policy questions.
Moreover, networks should prioritize airing town hall events.
Presidential aspirant Bernie Sanders received legitimate attention and respect for conducting a town hall on Fox News, as did his competitor Pete Buttigieg. Podcasts, which provide unfiltered perspectives unlike those on major networks, should also provide platforms for candidates.
Both are more reasonable ways to divert attention away from conflict and squabbling and toward discussions of actual policy issues.
Democrats should have an incentive to approach debates with poise and intellect. After all, they’re not going to beat Trump in an entertainment contest. But like with Republicans in 2016, the 2020 election to date has devolved into exactly that, in large part thanks to a flawed debate system that encourages insults and arguments instead of policy discussions.
As long as this presidential debate system remains the status quo, candidates will continue to prioritize clicks and attention over policy and mutual respect.
Josh Chazin is a rising senior at the University of Pennsylvania and an intern at a Washington, D.C. think tank.
