What was the most striking moment in the Trump vs. Harris presidential debate?
I would wager that the vast majority of people probably remember Trump’s bizarre allegation about Haitian migrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio. Alternatively, you might think of Harris refusing to answer whether or not Americans were better off four years ago than they are today. Or maybe the most notable moment to some was the ironic “I’m talking now,” which Trump interjected into the middle of his verbal barrage against Harris’s change in priorities for her campaign.
Whatever you think the funniest — or maybe most depressing — spat was between the two, it probably didn’t have much to do with policy or substantive changes that mean anything to anyone. In fact, there were multiple times throughout the debate when the conversation strayed completely from policy, instead focusing on the size of each candidate’s rally or other irrelevant topics.
Political discussion is so divisive in 2024. Let’s go back to Obama vs. Romney, Clinton vs. Bush or all of those other debates of an America gone past. They were so civil, so informative and so polite. Isn’t that right?
Perhaps they were informative, civil and polite by today’s standards, but modern standards for the quality of debates are incredibly low. Unfortunately, the format of debate has never truly been informative, properly civil or particularly useful in the ways that it should be. Instead, it has usually served as a type of petty bloodsport where voters receive information in one of the most inefficient and polarizing ways possible.
Don’t misunderstand me: Debates can sometimes be useful. There have been occasions where we see a substantial policy disagreement come out, even if it is presented in a confusing or distorted way. We even saw this in our most recent debate, when Trump was asked if he would sign a bill banning abortions nationally. He then turned to Harris and asked her if she would ban late-term abortions. Unfortunately — and as we might expect — neither of them answered. But it does help to elucidate something about each candidate to the viewer.
Nonetheless, one of the most important elections in the modern world should not be decided by resorting to sub-optimal displays of each candidate’s views. Even if debates have been and could potentially be somewhat civil, informative and useful, we should seek to use a format that fundamentally incentivizes the candidates to answer questions satisfactorily.
What do I think this format is? Podcasting.
Although it is a relatively recent phenomenon in infotainment, podcasting has its roots in radio broadcasting, which has been used by presidents since FDR’s “Fireside Chats” during World War II and the Great Depression. Roosevelt, and other presidents after him, recognized the potential of this powerful medium to provide a personal insight into the president’s thoughts. It could serve as a unifying force: a powerful way for the president to respond to concerns that normal people might have but not be able to get answers to otherwise.
Unfortunately, this medium has not carried over to our elections.
During the space of a two-hour podcast, a candidate might have time to explain a variety of their policy prescriptions on topics ranging from abortion to immigration to the economy. Ideally, such a podcast would be held with only one candidate, without an audience and with questions that don’t allow the candidates to obfuscate their answers without being noticed by the host (and presumably those watching at home). On the other hand, our modern debates have none of these safeguards, nor do most viewers learn anything except to reaffirm their preconceived notions about their preferred candidate.
According to a CNN flash poll taken right after the debate, only 18% of polled viewers even considered changing their minds during the debate. Of those, only 4% actually ended up changing their minds.
If you think 82% of the 67 million people who watched the debate are so deeply informed on the issues that they shouldn’t even consider another candidate, then there’s no reason to have any sort of conversation in the first place.
On the other hand, if you believe — as I do — that this speaks to a grave structural issue in the format of debates, then take this statistic as a warning emanating from the heart of a deeply partisan America.
We are in desperate need of real, substantive conversation in the current political climate. If it was customary for a presidential candidate to do a real, two-hour-long conversation with an insightful host, then we might be in a much different place than today. Now imagine if 67 million people sat down to watch that. Imagine what could change.
Kaleb Blizzard is a philosophy sophomore and opinion writer for The Battalion.
