The Presidential Debates Debate

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/07/opinion/letters/presidential-debates.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re Elizabeth Drew’s Op-Ed article “Scrap the Presidential Debates” (Aug. 4): Let’s not.

While Ms. Drew’s criticisms are fair, they miss a bigger point. For six decades, the singular benefit of the televised debates has been that they let voters see candidates talk to each other face to face — something that happens nowhere else in the course of a presidential election.

Particularly in our modern campaigns, saturated as they are in dark money and social media advertising, don’t Americans deserve some genuine interaction between the candidates on a national platform?

The debates are the only time in a modern campaign when voters see candidates think on their feet and speak at length and extemporaneously, without the benefit of script or consultants, armed with nothing but their character and intellect. The debates give voters multiple opportunities to see how candidates handle pressure.

And the televised debate is a feature of the American presidential campaign that other countries admire. More than 90 countries now have some kind of leader debates, and most seek guidance on organizing them from the Commission on Presidential Debates, on which I am a board member.

I’ve been involved one way or another in every televised presidential debate and know full well that such debates are not perfect — never have been, never will be. Winston Churchill believed that democracy was the worst form of government … except for all the others. The same truth applies to the debates.

Newton N. MinowChicago

To the Editor:

Debates are like job interviews. I once heard an executive search professional say that the worst indicator of future job performance is the job interview; the best indicator of future job performance is past job performance.

Yes, do away with presidential sideshows, and tell the electorate the real story.

Susan MaggiottoHastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Here’s an idea: Instead of scrapping the presidential “debates,” why don’t we actually make the candidates debate?

Candidates should make their case using the accepted debate formalisms (point/rebuttal/cross-examination …) to minimize interruptions and digressions. There should be several debates, each about one hot policy topic that the candidates clearly disagree on.

Each candidate gets to assert two or three affirmative positions to favor, and each must rebut two or three positions asserted by the opponent. Each should bring a favored policy expert to help make the case. I care less about the eloquence of the candidates than I do about the solidity of the advice they are getting and the solidity of their decision-making process.

Augustus P. LowellDurham, N.H.

To the Editor:

I support Elizabeth Drew’s proposal that we scrap presidential debates. Commentators and observers focus on winners and losers, which tends only to deepen the nation’s partisan animosities.

I would expand her scope and promote scrapping all debates, in politics and in our schools. After all, the strategy of debate is to avoid supporting any reasonable observations by your opponent. It’s an exercise in being unreasonable.

Instead, I suggest a forum of “common dialogue.” In this setting, the candidates sit at a round table. The moderator presents a problem that needs the attention of leaders. The candidates have 45 minutes to reach consensus on a solution. Candidates can comment often, but each comment would be limited to two minutes.

Audience members would gain firsthand evidence of candidates’ intelligence, biases and ability to lead toward consensus. There are no losers. The community wins.

Tad DunneAdrian, Mich.The writer is a philosophy professor at Siena Heights University.

To the Editor:

Elizabeth Drew has a point: The presidential debates are essentially worthless. If anything, they’re worse than that: They give an undeserved edge to show-business types, to out-to-lunch types who sincerely believe nonsense and to seasoned liars, none of whom deserve to be president of the United States of America.

The most powerful elected office in the world shouldn’t go to the candidate who looks best on TV, sounds best on the radio or is quickest with an irrelevant quip in front of a microphone.

But most people don’t seem to want to pay attention to the presidential campaign over the long haul, the “better way” Ms. Drew suggests. They’d rather decide early and cruise to the voting booth on autopilot.

Democracy works when the voters actually pay attention to what the candidates say and think carefully about whether it’s actually true, or even plausible. That didn’t happen in 2016, when real questions about Donald Trump’s ignorance and dishonesty were submerged beneath cries of “But her emails!” We’ve been paying for that ever since.

Eric B. LippsStaten Island

To the Editor:

Nervous Democrats are drawing the wagons around their presidential nominee.

The only inference to be drawn from the likes of Elizabeth Drew’s column, and by Democrats urging Joe Biden not to debate President Trump, is that doing so will reveal Mr. Biden’s lack of mental agility, of which Mr. Biden has already provided numerous examples. If Mr. Biden refuses to debate Donald Trump, millions of voters will deem him a coward. And they will be right.

Gerald KatzEdwards, Colo.

To the Editor:

If Joe Biden enters that debate circus, the bully ringmaster in chief, Donald Trump, will interrupt, insult, lie to and badger him incessantly.

As a candidate, Mr. Biden has maintained his dignity and continues to deliver quiet, measured messages to America, and he could hold his own in a debate. But why should he subject himself to that onslaught? And why give President Trump another bully pulpit?

Merritt H. CohenEast Hanover, N.J.

To the Editor:

Elizabeth Drew’s characterization of the debates as “professional wrestling matches” is unfortunately true. But as Thomas L. Friedman states in his column “Biden Should Not Debate Trump Unless …” (July 8), two conditions should be enforced if there are to be presidential debates this year: The candidates must reveal their tax statements (“Biden has already done so”), and fact-checking teams must be present to reveal false statements made by either candidate.

I would add a third condition: no live audience, a must in these pandemic times, and certainly less conducive to a wrestling match or circuslike atmosphere.

Joan BerglundOrient, N.Y.

To the Editor:

I completely agree with Elizabeth Drew about scrapping the debates. Any pretense that the president of the United States alone can “fix any problem” should be scrapped as well.

The power to make laws is vested in Congress. The duty of the president is to enforce the laws made by Congress. The duty of the judiciary is to interpret those laws. This is basic U. S. constitutional law, of which every candidate, every voter and everyone in the media should be aware.

Jane LangsethColts Neck, N.J.