Rule Negotiators For The Biden-Trump Debate Almost Got It Right

In a photo illustration, then-President Donald Trump and Democratic rival Joe Biden are seen on cellphone screens at the Oct. 22, 2020, debate. A rematch, this time with Biden as the current president, is scheduled for June 27.

Mad magazine used to have this featurette called “Scenes We’d Like to See,” where they lampooned a famous movie scene in their inimitable style.

The new debate structure agreed upon by our two top presidential campaigns comes close to something I’d like to see, that perhaps many of us would like to see. It could be even better.

For the longest time, I have complained that our debates have been more circus than substance, more a television event than a public service. They’ve hardly been thoughtful. They’ve hardly even been debates. They’ve been so much closer to laughable that they’ve hardly even mattered. Instead, they became about zingers, applause lines and the occasional high-five moment for your guy or theirs.

Like NASCAR, you waited for the crash. It’s what we talked about the next morning: who had the best witticism, who tanked like a bag of hammers. It fit neatly with our short attention spans and our need for affirmation. That is not a debate. We should be watching debates to be informed, not entertained.

There’s promise we might get more of the former and less of the latter if the new and improved structural elements crafted by the campaigns are finalized: a TV studio rather than a large venue; no audience; alternative turns to speak without interruption; microphones automatically cut off when a speaker’s time limit has elapsed.

Nevertheless, President Joe Biden’s campaign and former President Donald Trump’s brood have agreed on two debate dates: June 27 and Sept. 10. The June debate will take place at 9 p.m. EDT in Atlanta. The Sept. 10 debate is still being decided.

It’s a good start, but it’s not enough. Here are some other rules I’d like to see:

Accountability. A structural feature that assures the candidates are held accountable for what they say. We don’t have that and we still need that for these debates to matter. Debates should not only inform voters of what candidates know, they should also tell us what candidates don’t know. What safeguard is in place when the candidate veers off into a Wackyland word salad or avoids the question so he can force-feed a well-rehearsed talking point? Lawmakers have made this a common practice only because journalists always allow them to get away with it. It’s also something Trump does regularly, not because he’s mastered the practice but because he’s incapable of articulating direct, informative answers. Reporters have let him get away with that for far too long. Forums like a debate are where this should be stopped dead in its tracks. Are the moderators up to that task? They won’t be helping voters if they’re not.

Moderators with guts. Jake Tapper and Dana Bash will helm next month’s debate. They should be fearless, unafraid to stop a candidate flat out when he utters a falsehood. “Nope, sorry but that’s false.” More like “That’s a lie.” And the moderators should be well prepared to show how such a statement is false. They ought to know that; they’re the ones asking the questions and don’t feel the need to be nice about it. These candidates are applying for a job. Don’t let them snow the viewers. Be the gatekeepers against falsehoods and spin. If we have to have a gotcha moment, let it be from a moderator who puts a candidate in his place for blurting out a long-debunked falsehood.

George Stephanopoulos had the right idea about what the first question should be. But it doesn’t work without a proper setup and follow-up because those are more important than the question itself.

You begin with a proviso: “Gentlemen, this question requires no more than a two-word answer. Two words. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Then the question: “Who won the 2020 election?”

Biden’s answer: “I did.”

When Trump rambles on about a stolen election, you follow up with a series of questions: How do you explain the failure of more than 60 lawsuits to prove the claim you just made?

How is it that Republican candidates won their races in every state where you claim the Democrats cheated? Not a single Republican who won objected to their victories on the same day, on the same ballots, using the same election systems. Can you explain that?

Can you explain why every state and federal investigation found no evidence of such voter election theft?

Do you understand that when you called Georgia’s secretary of state and asked him to find you 11,000 more votes it sounded like the person trying to steal the election was you? Do we have to play that sound bite?

And while we’re at it, can you tell me why all the fake electors that have been indicted in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all Republicans?

He won’t be able to answer, and, “Mr. Trump, you haven’t provided a single effective answer to any of those questions. How can you continue to claim the election was stolen in the face of such immutable evidence you are unable to refute?”

If Trump then responds with one of his standard childish retorts, like, “Ya know what? You’re a nasty person,” be prepared.

”I don’t care if you don’t like me, Mr. Trump. I only care that you answer the question and then defend your answer. You’ve done neither. Over to you, Mr. Biden…”

Brutal? No, vital. If we insist on having presidential debates, we need moderators who not only ask questions but relentlessly ask follow-ups consisting of (A) What do you mean by that, (B) How will you do that? and (C) You didn’t answer my question.

Real-Time Fact Checkers: Why aren’t we doing this? News outlets routinely fact-check debates on their websites as they happen. We ought to have it for viewers: a panel of offstage fact-checkers quickly passing along verifications and corrections that moderators can readily see on computers they have before them. This would prevent candidates from offering spin, misinformation and outright lying. Imagine candidates being told beforehand that they’ll be fact-checked in real time. You want to see drama, some theatrics or a gotcha moment that so many viewers seem to crave? See how the candidates handle the pressure of knowing they’ll get called out on their crap. Don’t voters deserve an unvarnished look rather than gauzy obfuscation? Voters deserve politicians who don’t lie, and when they do, we deserve to see how they handle it when they’re called out for lying. Hell, I’d like to see which candidate rejects the idea of fact-checkers as a condition of the debates. What’s the matter? What are you afraid of?

More depth: Enough with the time limits. Let the candidates finish their thoughts rather than cut them off because time has elapsed. Frankly, insisting on 90-second solutions to the economy, Ukraine or the Middle East demeans the entire process of self-government and makes an absurdity out of running for office. Is it really so hard to have an honest adult conversation? Two candidates, moderators effectively refereeing, and everyone chats. But it’s Trump, you say. If he rambles or gets into schoolyard insults, remember the rules of your follow-up and take it a step further: What do you mean by that? Why did you resort to childish insults? You’re rambling. How about: Do you remember the question I asked?

Take a seat: Instead of standing, the candidates should be sitting down, roundtable-style. Not in deference to age but because it’s more conducive to an actual conversation. Perhaps the most substantive debate I’ve seen in modern times was that between then-Vice President Dick Cheney and his Democratic opponent, John Edwards, in 2004. No one complained about the idea of sitting down, which Cheney requested. Maybe no one cared since no one seems to care about vice presidential debates. But it was formal without being stuffy, civil with no memorable headline-grabbing moments and staid rather than staged. You had to listen to what they said rather than be distracted by how they looked.

Turn up the heat: Instead of a relaxed atmosphere or making the candidates look good, which is what each party wants, make them uncomfortable. These debates should be pressure cookers, like putting candidates on a witness stand, except with the caveat that they’re guilty until proved innocent. Candidates should be grilled like an intense cross-examination to ensure they can square their campaign rhetoric with facts, be called out when their answers contradict the facts and stopped cold when they’re not answering the question. Uncomfortable for the candidates while comforting for us. Of course, the campaigns would never go for that. They wouldn’t dream of letting the media make fools out of their candidates (even though most of them are fools).

No doubt the upcoming debate will still have moments both viewers and the media seek: the gotcha line, the impertinent Trumpian boorishness, a Biden memory lapse misconstrued for dementia. We already have a level of theatrical anticipation — or maybe anxiety — built into the telecast: How many will tune in just to see whether Biden looks old and feeble? You can’t tell me viewers didn’t tune in to the State of the Union address with that question in mind (much to the relief of his supporters and much to the disappointment of Trump acolytes).

I try to assess political debates for what they are: dog and pony shows that do little more than leave a general impression. That’s how they’re treated; that’s how the candidates are prepped; that’s how voters respond to them. Unless there’s a dramatic moment or a major gaffe, the result is the same: Your candidate won. That’s true regardless of whom you’re talking to, whether Republican or Democrat. People always tend to think their candidate won, largely because bias tends to override critical thinking, especially in politics, which is the one place where we need bias the least.

Maybe the improvements will help. I won’t be holding my breath.