Reinvent Debates
Despite some good moments, everything about the first two GOP presidential primary debates this year is a failure. They've lost their value, and it's time for a reset.
Having worked in some three dozen congressional campaigns over my career, I recall the times that I spent in debate prep with my candidates. Also, negotiating debate formats with our Democratic opponents. I also remember trying to spin the debate’s results with the media. I enjoyed playing a Democratic opponent in a mock debate with one GOP incumbent US Senator.
In short - they took a lot of time, and I can’t remember a single debate that measurably affected the election outcome.
Oh, sure, many debates have had major influences on election outcomes. Three come immediately to mind: In 1976, President Gerald Ford denied that Poland, at the time a Warsaw Pact nation, was “under Soviet domination.” He had to walk that back; the 1980 presidential debate between President Jimmy Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan (“Are you better off than you were four years ago?”); and a 2021 gubernatorial debate between former Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Republican Glenn Youngkin.
In the Virginia debate, McAuliffe torpedoed his campaign by claiming in a debate, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach,” in a failed sop to teacher unions.
The Washington Examiner wrote, “McAuliffe handed his Republican gubernatorial opponent Glenn Youngkin a campaign ad on a silver platter.” “Terry McAuliffe’s War on Parents,” screamed a National Review headline. Youngkin and Republicans won all three statewide contests and captured control of the House of Delegates. It also gave Republicans a national rallying cry and traction on an issue - education - on which they had previously trailed Democrats forever.
We’re back in debate season with last night’s second GOP presidential verbal jousting at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library (the Air Force One pavilion). All aspects of the debate - the format, the moderators, and the candidates - gleaned less than favorable grades from several political pundits. Here are a few examples:
“We are now dumber for having watched that Fox Business debate,” wrote Atlanta conservative talk show host and blogger Erick Erickson.
“We learned once again debates are often more about cross-talk, interruptions, scripted gotcha comments, and not-so-profound profundities,” opined Philadelphia and Kansas City talk show host and friend Chris Stigall.
“Former President Donald Trump, who cleverly missed the second GOP debate hosted by Fox and Univision at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on Wednesday night, was decidedly the debate winner,” wrote TIPPinsights’ editorial board.
“. . . two hours of not talking about what has just happened, what is happening, and what it means,” wrote Thomas Buckley, a fellow Substacker, friend, and former newspaper editor in California. He lamented the topics that were not brought up, from big tech censorship to errors in handling the COVID-19 pandemic.
It’s hard to argue with any of that. As an undecided GOP voter, I’m no closer to choosing a candidate than last Spring.
There were too many candidates on stage. The moderators failed to live up to their own rules and seemed to favor some candidates ahead of others, at least early on (especially Sen. Tim Scott [R-SC]). All the candidates performed as best they could under the circumstances. However, a couple of lines fell flat - Gov. Chris Christie’s “Donald Duck” reference to Trump and Pence’s cringeworthy comment about sleeping with a teacher for 38 years.
Several candidates tried to fix deficiencies from the first debate in August. Vivek Ramaswamy was kinder and gentler and said nice things about his opponents while being a little self-deprecating. Pence tried to be folksier and less programmed. Nice guy Tim Scott went on offense against Ramaswamy and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley. Doug Burgum was forced to interrupt his way into the debates as the moderators largely ignored him. He did score well with his answer about electric vehicles with batteries made mostly from “rare earth” minerals from China and with fewer union workers than gas-powered cars and trucks.
But did you learn anything? I didn’t. The format and the moderators - especially the insulting “Survivor” question - which fellow candidate they would vote off the island - failed. The left-wing hard-to-understand Univision moderator, Ilia Calderon, should be voted out of future debates. Candidates didn’t have an equal footing to address issues that were raised.
“The moderator from Univision, Ilia Calderón, said that gun violence is ‘unique’ to America. No candidate leapt to defend the country’s honor, pointing out that countries like her native Mexico have far higher rates of firearm murders per capita. Instead, out came the stump speeches,” wrote the New York Sun’s Dean Karayanis.
The RNC needs to go back to the drawing board for future debates. This isn’t working.
Abraham Lincoln and incumbent US Senator Steven Douglas still hold the record for the best debates in Illinois in 1858—just the two of them, seven debates. No moderators. It was just a civil discussion and debate over issues of the day, especially slavery. I highly recommend the 22-hour recreation of the debate at Audiobooks.com.
Douglas won reelection (in those days, Senators were elected by state legislatures). But it set the stage for the presidential contest just two years later.
I would much rather see the candidates actually debate each other, back and forth, on issues and proposals that expose differences. Perhaps a single moderator asks a question, and they get out of the way, with fewer candidates on stage - no more than three. Maybe limit the debates to a single topic or two over one hour instead of two-hour marathons.
The 2015 debates between the major party leaders in Canada - Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Justin Trudeau, and New Democrat Thomas Mulcair, exemplify that. I enjoyed watching all but their French-language debate in Quebec. They were respectful, articulate, pointed, and detailed. It was informative. Trudeau’s party won that election, and he’s still in power (for now). Moderators limited their interventions, and interruptions were rare - they offended Canadian sensibilities.
I will not be too hard on the RNC and its chair, Ronna McDaniel, or my friend Dave Bossie, the long-time GOP operative helping McDaniel with the debate. They get credit for mostly (except for Wednesday night) keeping hostile moderators away and finding good debate venues. But it’s time for a reset.
The main problem is that these aren't debates, and haven't been in decades. They're shows for the egos of the moderators, with wannabe presidents as their props.
A real debate is not run by moderators who choose the topics, questions, and respondents. A real debate would let the candidates speak and address each other in a civil manner. All they need is a referee to curb microphone hogging.
As for their numbers, fewer candidates in stage is of course better. But to close them to mavericks who might rise from obscurity with a notable performance, by raising topics nobody else will, would be an own goal -- for the health of the party and country, we need to hear diverse voices early in the process, to be winnowed down in short order. Not clear to me how best to achieve that balance.