Every time the Republican or Democratic National Convention (RNC; DNC) schedule a presidential candidate debate, I become excited in anticipation of watching the potential future leaders of the United States of America express their beliefs, value system, and philosophy on how this country should be run.
Furthermore, the debates are a great time to give the voters a chance to find the distinction between a great orator and someone who will be able to work with Congress and implement effective policies to confront the problems of the times. A presidential election debate should set the agenda for any and all future policy conversations that we have.
Each time my anticipation level reaches its climax, it comes down to an equally low feeling of disappointment within the first twenty minutes of the debate. The low quality of the policy discussions that we have seen thus far from most of the candidates has been disheartening to the many American citizens who wish to hear more about the policy proposals of the many candidates.
The clearest way in which candidates avoid this type of substantive discussion is to consistently repeat the platform that he/she is running on. The worst example of this is the way Donald Trump touts his anti-immigrant, xenophobic and populist platform with little adherence to common sense, logic or evidence. What’s worse is that voters do not hear what Trump’s philosophy behind all of his boisterous claims is. A majority of the remaining candidates in the Republican Party, as a defense mechanism against Trump, are following suit and becoming more extreme while simultaneously becoming less articulate.
On the better end, we hear Hillary Clinton claim that she wishes to carry on Obama’s legacy without any discussion on why Americans should want another four years of Obama’s policies or substantive reasons why she favors his policies.
Even the candidate I support, Bernie Sanders, continues to just repeat his platform of campaign finance reform with little explanation on how he plans to accomplish his policy proposals. The lack of substantive reasoning in this presidential election cycle is contributing to the decrease of intellectual integrity in American politics and in a portion of the American people.
A true debate should feature competitors using logical and substantive arguments to persuade the electorate that his/her policies are superior to his/her opponents’ policies. This allows voters to intellectually evaluate the words and intentions of the candidate. A necessary requirement, in a society that values almost-absolute free speech, is a societal check on illogical and extreme speech.
In this model, voters would revolt when Donald Trump defers to hate speech, either publicly expressing their disapproval or by ensuring he goes down in the polls. Unfortunately, the reverse has happened. Trump has seen rising poll numbers after every extreme claim he has made. Although he has faced some public disapproval, there has not been enough to shame him from continuing to run on the hate platform.
There are a few solutions that we, as a society, have at our disposal. First, the debate moderators should be tougher than they have been. Candidates should not be let off of the hook when they do not answer the question and speaking time should be taken away every time candidates make any remarks that are not in defense of their own policies or in offense against their opponent’s proposals.
Second, voters should threaten to boycott the voting booth if the discourse does not significantly improve. Voters should not be forced to choose between extreme candidates and candidates who refuse to delve deeper than the surface level into the issues that they care about.
If voter turnout drops significantly then the DNC and RNC will be forced to reform the way politicians represent themselves on the debate stage. The marketplace of ideas is essential to any democracy and the determination, by our leaders, to explore those ideas through rigorous debate and discourse is necessary to ensure our democracy is sustainable.
