Lies and Deceit Are Not a Debate

 Now that the Oct. 15 debate has been cancelled, the Commission on Presidential Debates and we the people have a little more time to think before the next debate format is finalized.

What we should have learned from the first presidential and the only vice-presidential debate begins with wondering why even bother to hold debates when:

•  No one answers questions, in part because
•  Two minutes is not enough time to even begin to answer questions about complex issues;
•  The answers of one side, consistent with their campaign techniques, are based on lies, half-truths, misstatements, and deceit;
•  The objectivity of the moderator is at best questionable.

Let’s unpack some of the above.  First, it is rare to get a clear answer to a question.  Now there are several reasons for this.  One is that the candidates don’t want to turn off any potential voters.  Another is that they don’t want the voters to know the answer (for example, Biden/Harris refusing to answer questions about their intent to pack the Supreme Court). 

But, even if they wanted to give a clear answer, it is hard to do so within the time structures of the debates.  You can’t just answer a complex social or international issue “yes” or “no”.  Such answers require complex explanations underlying the yes or no.  It is impossible to give such explanations in two minutes or less and if one tries to do so it is more than likely that the incomplete explanation will be used against them by the media and/or their opponents.

The limited rebuttal time does not really allow a candidate to challenge his or her opponent when that opponent bases an answer on falsehoods.  If there is a limited (usually 1 minute or less ) time for rebuttal, that is insufficient to explain why the answers of the opponent are deceitful and to cite the necessary facts and authority that prove the deceit. 

It is very frustrating, not to mention unfair, to see an opponent be allowed to base an entire answer on a lie and then see the other participant be left unable to rebut.  This sometimes leads to interruptions (yes, all 4 candidates have interrupted their opponent) as the one faced with the lies tries to set the record straight.

Because of the lack of time to actually address and explain issues, the candidates are left to repeat tired campaign slogans and party lies.  How many times do we have to hear the thoroughly debunked assertion that Trump has not condemned white supremacist groups?  Or the tired out of context and proven lie from Charlottesville asserting that he said the KKK were good people? 

Wouldn’t we all like to hear positions on issues instead?  But the debate format makes that nearly impossible.

And let’s not forget that this is a media event.  The media likes show.  I thought the absolute best comment about the presidential debate came from Sen. Ted Cruz who said that the “raucous debate” reminded him of Detroit Pistons Basketball when the team was known as the “Bad Boys.”  He said, "It kind of reminded me of the Detroit Pistons basketball in the 90s where there were a lot of hard fouls, there were a lot of missed shots. But at the end of the day, I doubt the debate changed the election in any fundamental way."  That’s a pretty good summary of what was a worthless debate, but a pretty good show.

We also must think about the moderator.  It seems that it is the moderator who determines the topics and writes the questions.  These moderators are TV personalities, journalists, etc.  They are people with strong political opinions.  And those opinions, their biases, are clearly apparent in the questions themselves and in the behavior of the moderator. 

The bias seems to have become clearly apparent in the behavior of the moderator who would have hosted the Oct. 15 debate – prior support for Biden and tweets about the upcoming debate with a staunch Trump critic (tweets that he conveniently claims were the result of a hack). 

In the first presidential debate, the moderator effectively became a participant when he took it upon himself to argue with the President.  The moderator’s job is to ask the questions, let the candidates answer, and let the people make their own judgements.

Lack of necessary fairness can be more subtle.  In the VP debate it appeared that Pence ran over his time far more than did Harris.  But, those who actually timed the debate noted that the moderator asserted “time up” to Pence at exactly the 2 min. mark while regularly allow Harris to run over for 15 or more seconds before telling her that her time was up.

So, the committee has more time than it thought until the next debate.  Perhaps they could actually do something to turn the apparently final debate into something meaningful for the voters.  What might they do:

•  Change the structure entirely so that the debate is about issues.  If the debate is 90 minutes, give 30 minutes each to 3 issues.  Treat those three issues like a real debate.  For example, if the issue is going to be healthcare, the opening question might be:  Explain the extent to which you believe the government should be involved in providing health care, why you believe that is the best policy, and how your position/plan would actually affect the citizenry.  Give each candidate an opening of 6 minutes to give a basic answer, then each has a 3 minute rebuttal, then each can ask the other a question for which there are 2 minutes allowed for response, another set of 2 minute questions, and then each gets a 1 minute conclusion.

• With the above structure, the moderator’s primary function would be to keep time and keep it fairly.  Aside from stating the opening question, the moderator should not be asking questions or arguing with the candidates.

• The debate Commission should be the one to come up with the topics and the opening question and it should be objective and even handed so as not to give either candidate an advantage or disadvantage.  I would suggest that the questions should be drafted and/or reviewed by individuals with leanings to both the Left and the Right.

• This should be a stand-up debate.  The candidates should be told in advance the general nature of the topics.

A debate following the above structure might be less exciting than a debate with a lot of fireworks, less exciting than a Pistons game in the 90s, but it would be far more informative for the voters who are electing a President and not a point guard.

Just a thought.