Presidential campaigns are exercises in control. Each candidate’s team works day and night to fashion every media appearance, sound bite, and news story in a way that will show their man in the best possible light. Policies are packaged and repackaged, narratives are spun to explain and capitalize on the minutest detail of a speech or photograph, and each side insists that any flaw you might detect in their candidate is a mere trick of the light.
As campaigns wear on, it gets harder and harder to know the dancer from the dance, to distinguish the human from the layers of framing and narrative built up around him. Debates are one of the only forums left where campaigns voluntarily cede control for a significant chunk of time. Once the debaters walk out onto the stage, they are, to a certain extent, at the mercy of the moderators, the cameras, and the viewers. One of the two people on that stage will once again become the most powerful person on the planet, and we need to get a good, hard look at them.
That’s why in this clip I insist, contra John McWhorter, that we should see Trump and Biden debate at least once before the election. We need to see the candidates stripped of their social media teams and deprived of their teleprompters. Whoever ends up in office next January will enter with scores of advisers and experts helping them run the country. But the candidate is the thing. The voters deserve to see what they’re really getting when they pull the lever, and they deserve to hear what these men will say when asked about the hard issues. No one expects a Trump-Biden debate to provide soaring oratory or rhetorical virtuosity. The least we can ask is a flash of reality amid the spin.
This is a clip from the episode that went out to paying subscribers on Monday. To get access to the full episode, as well as an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.
GLENN LOURY: How about we close on our favorite topic of disagreement, which is Trump and Biden. Not that I'm a Trump supporter. I don't want anyone to get me wrong out here. But I have on occasion been a Trump defender in conversation with John McWhorter. You could just go into the archives and see.
But the question has risen as to whether or not there should be a debate. It is obvious that Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. Biden's going to be the Democratic nominee. We're going to have a presidential election in November. Typically, there are debates organized between the major contending candidates. How do you react to the question of whether or not there should be debates? Or at least one.
JOHN MCWHORTER: If the debates are supposed to be about the issues. If we're dealing with, say, Nixon versus Kennedy, which candidate has the most attractive ideas to you about the issues. And maybe, to an extent, which candidate is mentally alert in a way that he is good at parrying what the other person says. In other words, a debate. Now, there's always some showbiz involved, the Nixon Kennedy debates being a classic example of how you thought Nixon won if you just heard it, you thought Kennedy won if you saw it. So there's always going to be some of that.
Because Nixon was sweating
And less handsome. But also, he's sweating. He didn't have the right makeup. But in this case, and I guess I'm going to seem like I'm beating a dead horse, but I genuinely feel Trump is not capable of engaging in what we would call a debate. I don't mean that he's too stupid to ... yes, I do. I do think he's not smart enough to grasp the issues. But more to the point, he won't engage in debate in that way. All he's going to do is beat his chest and war and do that thing that he does. He can't debate.
So we can call it a debate, but all it'll be is Biden trying to make his points and the other person just roaring and screaming and ridiculing and name calling. That's not a debate. I would rather that Biden do some nice town halls by himself and Trump keep doing his rallies. Why bring them together? Especially given that the nature of things is such that it's going to sway so very few people. And yes, I'll admit that—this is the showbiz—to the extent that anybody's swayed, it'll be by Trump, because he's funny and a little more vital-seeming at his age than Biden is.
But mainly, Trump can't do the thing we call debate. All it would be is a show. Why do it? I'm not sure I see the reason to put them on the same stage. But you do?
I think that people are entitled to see their prospective presidents comport themselves in public in response to questions. And by the way, it's not just the two people there. There are also the journalists who are putting the questions to the candidates. The “debate” does involve some back and forth. But it also involves some [exchange] with the journalist as intermediary between the candidate and the audience. Explain yourself under pressure. Explain yourself when there's a rebuttal that's coming back at you from the other side. Tell me why what you believe is what it is that I should endorse.
Trump can't do that. He won't answer the question. He'll just roar and perform and all that.
In which case he will show himself to be, if that's what he does, precisely that: someone who doesn't answer the questions. We should have the opportunity to put the questions to him and to have him respond to the arguments that are made by the other side and vice versa. And if he doesn't do it, then he will have failed.
We're back to this. You really don't trust the people to glean from such an encounter the messages that they should glean. You think that they're going to be duped or taken enough to affect the election.
This razor-thin outcome that we have.
Given that Biden is feeble—that State of the Union was forcefully delivered. But the general problem of Biden walking across the White House lawn to get to Marine One to take him someplace and you have to hold your breath wondering whether he's going to stumble along the way is a real problem.
I'm going to take such a drubbing in the comments section, but I want to make it clear. My main reason for not wanting the debate is not that I'm worried that people would be swayed and that he would win because I don't think people understand the issues, etc. Let's face it. We've all always known that most people don't follow politics closely. That is true, but that's not my main reason. My main reason for it is just thinking Trump is incapable of answering questions. Trump is incapable of actual debate. What's the point? And then I find myself worried about how close the election is, etc. Anyway, go ahead.
No, I think we've exhausted the topic here. I was just going to say, in virtue of Biden's limitations associated with his age, it's very clear why his campaign would want to avoid debates. Because they are a minefield for them. Something could go wrong. Anything could go wrong. And why take that risk if there's very little to gain and there's a lot to lose?
And it's also clear why Trump would want debates. Because he wants to show “I'm the better man. I'm more vital. I'm faster on my feet.”
Biden wouldn't have the control that he had over the State of the Union speech. He would be more likely to either slip and say something stupid or severely misremember something, and then it would be endlessly played. That's not something I've been thinking that hard about. But yeah, it would not be good for Biden.
I put it this way. If Biden gave more press conferences, I'd see less of a need for a debate. If he opened himself to spontaneously reacting to aggressive questioning from the public—the media are just our representatives—then I'd say, okay, that purpose has been served. We don't have to have a contest between these two candidates. But absent that, he wants to campaign, so to speak, from his basement. I think the people are poorly served.
How would you feel about him doing three events of that kind, where he had to hold his own live for two hours, and he has to do that, say every two weeks? Would that be a decent substitute for getting on stage with Trump?
Yeah, it would.
From my point of view, now we've written a column. I think I'm going to do this.
Okay. You can just mention me in a footnote. I know they don't do footnotes on columns. “As my friend Glenn Loury, in our wonderful podcast, The Glenn Show ...”
I will give you credit. Yep.
Thank you.
Lets not forget... Any rational person knows that the liberal debate moderators, including Chris Wallace, went after Trump in a biased manner. Trump was not just debating his debate opponent. He was debating the moderators. That is not how a debate is supposed to work. Most of the moderators in the 2020 debates had a political agenda.... F with Trump, go after him and protect Biden. Did Trump handle this in the best way... no. But that is part of the reason he was a D&^% on the debate stage. And frankly, I don't blame him
Of course they should debate.
How can there be a question?
Mr. McWhorter speaks of 'debate skill' and the degree to which any candidate (Trump!) can grasp and is willing to wrestle actual issues. And he won't (and neither will Biden) But the answer to that objection is 'so what?'.
I've watched countless political debates and really can't think of a single one in which the two performers (for they are, in fact, performers) actually, rationally, and deliberately parsed real issues. Of course they don't.
That may be the nominal purpose of a so-called Debate. But the real purpose is very similar to that served by the Miss America Swimsuit Competition (sadly come and gone, I guess). It's to see the candidates LIVE and IN-PERSON deal with the moderator's question....and, unlike the swimsuit competition, their opponent's response to same. It's to watch the song & dance and try to decide which is the worst, who is the cleverest, what was the wittiest thing said, by whom, and -- much like that swimsuit show -- who looks the best under pressure.
That's it; that's all.
Sure, it'd be nice to hear an actual debate...and it'd be helpful to listen to a reasoned presentation of policy options....but you can't find that much of anywhere (save here, every now & then). What we'll find instead is Strike-a-Pose Voguing and the occasionally ingenious use of a platform opportunity to launch into some completely unrelated (but always passionate) screed of a different sort.
Trump will produce much bombastic blather; it's true. But Biden, old & frail & demented man that he is, will only blither & rage (which is not unusual for one who suffers from age-related dementia). It's sad and undoubtedly tragic for Joe's family...but it's terrifying for the country he leads.
So let it happen. Let the show go on. Let us see these Would-Be-Emperors without their 'clothes', without their handlers, without their scripts & prompters & note cards; let us see them without the wife to come on stage to lead them to the exit.
Of course it won't be about the issues. Though issue-related points will indeed be made, and rightfully so. It will be about how we the electorate see them, hear them, and understand them as they strive to meet the demands of the moment.
And when it becomes evident -- as most of us believe it will -- that Biden can't handle the moment , then it equally becomes evident that he has no business anywhere near the Presidency...which is full of moments much more challenging than a simple TV Dog & Pony Show.
So yes...on with the debate!
[And no, watching either performer, live, on-stage, by themselves would not be the same; not even close. I want to see them pushed; I want to seem them passionate; I want to see them perform when someone else who opposes them is on the stage with them. Would anyone suggest a Superbowl in which each team occupies the field, by themselves for 2 hours...and then we let Jim Nance & Tony Romo decide who won??? God, no!]