Op-ed: The debate system created Trump — how can we avoid a repeat?

Turn on the news at any time of the day, and you will see political pundits discussing the previous night’s debate, translating debate performance into primary prognostications or anticipating a coming debate. The debate system has become entrenched in our political system — the most ubiquitous, consistent method for choosing the party representatives and our next president.

Lost in the conversation about Donald Trump’s terrifying rise to Republican presidential frontrunner is how the televised debate system elevated Trump. In many ways, Trump — a performer and a showman — was the logical result of a debate stage that values bluster above substance, promotes one-liners above complex policy prescriptions and rewards hardliner positions over measured compromise.

Televised debates emerged in the election of 1960 with the famed debates between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy. And initial reviews were not positive. Prior to the first of four debates, the Wall Street Journal warned that a televised debate would be “rigged more for entertainment than for enlightenment.” The New York Times concurred, arguing that the debate would appeal to voters “who are influenced not so much by logic and reason as by emotional, illogical factors…. The fear is that they will not discuss the issues as much as put on a show.” These reactions, while prescient, could be attributed to the print media digging its heels in against the growing dominance of television media. Upon the first debate’s conclusion, moderator Quincy Howe of ABC News said, “Vice President Nixon and Senator Kennedy have used a new means of communication to pioneer a new type of political debate… Surely they have set a new precedent. Perhaps they have established a new tradition.”

Howe was right, and today the debate has become our central tool for evaluating a presidential candidate. In 2012, there were a staggering 23 Republican debates. The Republican National Committee (RNC) made the conscious decision to drop to 13 debates in this year’s election cycle after RNC Chairman Reince Priebus called the 2012 primary debate schedule "ridiculous," and "blamed the forum battles for the presidential election loss."

However, this year’s elections have only perpetuated the RNC’s problems, giving rise to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz — a racist, xenophobic businessman and a severely conservative senator hated throughout Washington. Both candidates will be unelectable in the general election. A new study from the University of Miami, which employed game theory in its analysis, concludes that an increased number of campaigns emphasizes a candidate’s character above policy stances. According to Christopher Cotton, a professor at Queens University and co-author of the study, televised debates encourage voters to base their political decisions on vague impressions of candidates rather than on facts or policy. "The more often the voters are going to see these people on TV, the more likely one is to stand out as a much better speaker, while another looks like a bumbling buffoon," he said.

Amazingly, the American political system has never tested a political alternative to the debates. The first presidential debate occurred in 1858 between Abraham Lincoln and Senator Stephen A. Douglas. As a nation, we never stopped to consider whether debates emphasized the qualities sought in a president. According to Fred Greenstein, a renowned professor of political science at Princeton, the six attributes most correlated to success in office are effectiveness as a public communicator, organizational capacity, political skill, vision, cognitive style and emotional intelligence. Very few of these traits are tested or revealed on a debate stage. Instead, we are treated to rehearsed lines, manufactured spats and baseless rhetoric. So what is the alternative?

Maybe it’s because I was an avid participant in Model U.N. in high school, but I would like to see candidates participate in a mock crisis game, a simulation in which candidates are placed in a room together, presented with a looming crisis and given two hours to reach a consensus plan of action. Debates have largely phased out hypothetical questions, as candidates will always dismiss them with a retort like, “I don’t deal in hypotheticals.” But I believe that such an exercise could reveal a lot about a candidate. A mock Situation Room exercise would test a candidate’s ability to think quickly and act decisively, reveal their understanding of current events and test their composure under pressure. Most importantly, given the hyper partisan climate in Washington, it would reward candidates who are willing to compromise and politicians who can engineer a proposal acceptable to both sides. Of course, candidates like Ted Cruz have gained popularity based on their refusal to compromise, demonstrating the strengths of their convictions. But in a televised crisis game model, these candidates would appear obstinate and ineffective. Such an exercise would reveal the ugly reality of a candidate fundamentally opposed to compromise.

I would like to once again quote the Times’ analysis of the televised 1960 elections: “The fear is that they will not discuss the issues as much as put on a show.” The Times understood the ramifications of a televised debate serving as the primary tool in our election process 56 years ago. And now, we have seen the inevitable product of that system: Donald Trump. I am not calling for the abolition of all televised debates. At times, they can be illuminating glimpses into the thought process and leadership styles of a candidate. But it is time we explored alternatives to this system — models of discourse that emphasize skills critical to leadership like the abilities to think critically, listen to good advice and engineer acceptable compromises. It’s time we got smart about choosing our next president.

 

Editor’s note: If you would like to send your response or make an Op-Ed contribution to the Opinion section, please email us at tuftsdailyoped@gmail.com. The Opinion section looks forward to hearing from you.