What does Jake Tapper have against dumpster fires?
CNN news anchor Jake Tapper characterized the first presidential debate as “a hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck.” Now, while this comment may have been offensive to dumpster fires everywhere, it is a fairly accurate representation of the debate.
I turned off the television at 10:30 p.m. in a state of complete dismay and despondency. A CBS post-debate poll found that only 17% of respondents felt “informed” following the debate, while 69% felt “annoyed.”
I cannot imagine any undecided voters felt better able to make their decision following the debate. The conduct of U.S. President Donald Trump and the debate’s overall lack of substantive content was an absolute disgrace to our nation.
The full blame for the presidential debate debacle does not solely lie with President Trump. Instead, he just stands as an aggravating symptom of the problem. The main problem is the debates themselves.
Our debates are no longer substantive policy discussion forums in which opposing candidates outline their party’s platform and vision for the country. Instead, they are much more akin to a sibling argument or better yet, the bickering that ensues after that one uncle brings up politics at Thanksgiving.
How is it possible that during a pandemic, the American people did not hear about President Trump’s healthcare plan, or more aptly, his lack of plan?
A topic so complex as criminal justice reform was only delegated two minutes of “uninterrupted” speaking time. Instead of lengthy policy discussions, the debate fostered a playground fight during which one candidate made fun of the other’s family, called the other “not smart” and failed to condemn white supremacy.
It is unthinkable that this spectacle stems from the same lineage and tradition as the John F. Kennedy versus Richard Nixon debate or the Ronald Reagan versus Jimmy Carter debates. I blame President Trump for the disrespect and puerility of the debate. However, I do not fully blame him for the lack of content. Our presidential debates are in need of serious reforms that address format and content.
The issues facing America and the American people are not easy. They deserve more than two minutes. They deserve lengthy segments that delve into the complexity and minutiae of each topic and issue.
By significantly increasing the length of time devoted to each topic or issue, the candidates will be given the necessary format to fully verbalize their beliefs, experiences and plans. Not only that, it could possibly eradicate candidate’s nonanswers and sardonic quips. With 10 or 15 minutes on the clock, a candidate is forced to say more than a simple one-liner.
The second necessary reform regards the moderator. I hold no animus toward Chris Wallace. I think he is one of the few reporters worthy of moderating debates and that he tried his best to maintain dialogue and to adhere to the debate guidelines.
However, I do not think it is fair or conducive to have only one moderator. Instead, it would be far more beneficial to have a full panel of “experts” to facilitate discussion and dialogue between candidates on specific issues.
For example, an economist and hospital administrator could spearhead the segment focused on healthcare. A police officer, district attorney and leading activist in the Black Lives Matter movement could direct questions regarding criminal justice reform and racial injustice in America.
Experts from academia and the professional world would ensure diverse perspectives are presented, affirm the complexity of each issue and promote a worthwhile back and forth between the candidates and the panelists.
Our presidential debates should be the pinnacle of civil discourse in America. They should embody Americans’ clash on policy, but also acknowledge agreement on foundational principles.
The American people deserve to be fully informed come Election Day. Presidential debates should further aid this goal, not detract from it. President Trump’s potential exit from the political arena this November will aid this cause, but it will not solve the problem all together. We need debate reform.
