The second debate of the 2024 election season, between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, took place just last week on September 10th, hosted by ABC News. Although the candidates addressed similar issues to those of the first debate, between President Joe Biden and former President Trump, the outcome was much different; while Democrats hail Harris the winner of the evening due to Trumpâs distraction by her numerous personal jabs, Republicans are discrediting the debate altogether, citing bias on the part of ABC News and moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis. With all of this commotion, can it be said that Americans are intellectually benefitting at all from televised presidential debates? Are these debates influencing voter decisions, or are they simply another form of entertainment for the millions of people who tune in?Â
A study conducted in 2022 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that presidential debates make little to no significant impact on Americansâ choice at the ballot box, with only 10% of viewers reporting a âmind made upâ immediately following the debate. A study in 2016 reported viewersâ opinions regarding each candidateâs fitness for the role of President didnât change at all as a result of watching a presidential debate. These statistics underscore a guarded indifference that the public has developed towards presidential debates, a phenomena observed and articulated as early as 1976. In an article published in âThe New York Times,â the author insists that âthe debatesâ inherent weakness is their showâbusiness nature […] the mesmerizing format may bypass real issues while creating artificial but politically exploitable ones.â The problem of âartificial but politically exploitableâ speech content is something that is still omnipresent 48 years later, whether we turn to Vice President Harrisâ harping on former President Trumpâs criminal record in response to a question about immigration or, responding to the same question, Trumpâs insistence that immigrants are eating small animals in Springfield, Ohio.Â
After witnessing a âdebateâ where personal insults and misguided digressions dominated conversation, I was left wanting more in terms of the candidatesâ positions on pressing political issues. For example, Vice President Harris pledged she would provide first time home-buyers with up to $25,000 towards the cost of a home, but did not articulate where or how these funds would become accessible. What would be the economic implications of government hand-outs so large, and so widespread? Former President Trump, when pressed about his plans to replace Obamacare, could not offer any tangible solutions, merely insisting he has âconcepts of a plan.â It is undeniable that these debates are not serving the purpose they once did, that we are far from the days of Kennedy v. Nixon. Rather than serving as a platform for each candidate to talk to the American people, the presidential debate has devolved into a platform for candidates to attack one another, professionally and personally, on live television; the presidential debate as âmedia spectacleâ rather than informative political program has become the norm. Take, for instance, the structure of many recent questions proposed by debate moderators, which Caroline Framke of âVarietyâ claims adhere almost exclusively to the following format: â[x candidate]: your opponent/naysayers have said your [x policy] is dumb. Why are they wrong?â As Framke later disemminates, many, if not most, recent moderator queries have been designed to produce animosity and competition rather than foster an objective, intellectual discussion. The proof is in the pudding; hereâs just a couple excerpts from last weekâs debate that support Framkeâs theory:
David Muir: âAs you [former President Trump] know many economists say that with tariffs at that level costs are then passed onto the consumer. Vice President Harris has argued it’ll mean higher prices on gas, food, clothing medication arguing it costs the typical family nearly four thousand dollars a year. Do you believe Americans can afford higher prices because of tariffs?â
Linhsey Davis: âPresident Trump, you’ve often touted that you were able to kill Roe v. Wade. Last year, you said that you were proud to be the most pro-life president in American history. Then last month you said that your administration would be great for women and their reproductive rights. […] Vice President Harris says that women shouldn’t trust you on the issue of abortion because you’ve changed your position so many times. Therefore, why should they trust you?â
So, with moderators intent on manufacturing madness and candidates intent on ruthlessly slandering one another, where is the viability of the American presidential debate? The Annenberg Debate Reform Working Group, an organization operating out of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says âin reform.â This group proposes a number of amendments to the current presidential debate format, some of which include cutting back on the power and speaking allowance of moderators, shying away from entertaining âcanned mini-speechesâ from candidates, and including the general public more intentionally in the formulation of debate questions. Whether or not these changes would prove entirely redemptive for the presidential debate remains to be seen.
Sources:
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26572/w26572.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/1976/09/24/archives/lights-camera-candidates.html
https://cdn.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Democratizing-The-Debates.pdf
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-happens-biden-steps-down-2024/
https://x.com/joebiden/status/1815087772216303933?s=46
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gdnl9pg1wo
https://nlihc.org/resource/harris-campaign-releases-plans-lower-housing-costs
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542