Setting the Standard for Presidential Debates

February 4, 2016 marked the first time Senator Bernie Sanders and Secretary Hillary Clinton debated each other one-on-one. As my friends and I watched the debate, we were struck by the civility of the candidates and how they (for the most part) provided responses to the questions that did not circumvent the issues, but rather directly addressed them. The debate seemed out of the ordinary—where were the accusatory interjections, the complaints about speaking time, the critiques of the moderators’ questions? We couldn’t help but feel like we were witnessing an anomaly.

I soon realized that this shock at the success of the debate is fundamentally wrong. Although I am a debate laywoman, I know that all healthy debating should entail people challenging each other in a respectful manner. I know that candidates demanding each other to clarify and expound upon their ideas should be the norm, not the exception.

But it is no surprise that our expectations of debates are lower than they ought to be. In our sensationalized society, debates are framed as dramatic spectacles. Video reels preceding presidential debates feature music that swells to theatrical heights as the candidates flash before our eyes, and controversial sound bytes are juxtaposed to create tension. It’s as if networks are advertising a boxing match instead of an exchange of ideas. Then, at the actual debate, candidates invoke fearmongering images of Syrian refugees as terrorists, or accuse Planned Parenthood of “rip[ping] up [children’s] body parts and sell[ing] them like they’re parts to a Buick.” This atmosphere conditions the American public into believing that a debate should have the entertainment quality of a sporting event, the flash of a game show, and the cutthroat competition of a cage match.

Once both candidates gave their opening statements at the Feb. 4 Democratic debate, Chuck Todd, one of the moderators, asked Sanders the first question. Before answering, Sanders said, “you know, sometimes there’s a lot of drama here. I have known Secretary Clinton for 25 years and respect her very much.” This simple statement seems out of the ordinary for those accustomed to the sensationalized atmosphere of a nationally-televised debate. On the debate stage that night, this comment combatted expectations of vitriol, and set the tone for two hours and three minutes of civil discussion based on ideas rather than ad hominem arguments.

In a piece for New York Magazine, Eric Levitz wrote about a segment of the Feb. 4 debate where Clinton and Sanders engaged in “one of the most riveting ten minutes of debate in the history of American presidential politics.” This statement is a testament to the power of genuine debate. Too often, debates become platforms for mini-speeches where candidates pander to specific audiences (by invoking G-d to appeal to religious voters, for example). But this undermines the true spirit of debate. Yes, it is essential for candidates to arrive prepared with specifics on their policies, or responses to the latest scandals that surround them, but free thought in accordance with the flow of dialogue is equally necessary. A witty sound byte or pithy expression will engage the American public for the moment, but debates are truly “riveting” when the candidates set aside scripted remarks and challenge each other with passion and spontaneity.

I am not suggesting that healthy debate should be devoid of confrontation. On the contrary, certain provocative statements can facilitate significant conversation. In the section of the debate devoted to campaign finance—a hot topic between Sanders and Clinton—both candidates wanted to clarify their positions on the issue. Clinton, tired of Sanders insinuating she has ties to Wall Street, said, “I really don’t think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you…If you’ve got something to say, say it directly.” Though this comment was rather confrontational, it led to the candidates stating some form of the phrase, “let’s talk about the issues” a total of twelve times in the span of fifteen seconds. Though it may sound excessive and almost comical, this chorus of pleas to talk about the issues was music to my ears; it signaled how sound debaters ought to channel their frustration into a discussion of the issues rather than into a storm of empty accusations. As a result of this, Sanders and Clinton went on to touch upon key topics like super PACs, the fossil fuel industry, and the deregulation of Wall Street—all the while through fluid, organic discourse. Such a discussion could not have been achieved through the mindless repetition of talking points and frequent jabs at opponents. It required genuine engagement and attentiveness, values on which both candidates delivered. In healthy debate, listening and responding to one’s opponent is just as important as advancing one’s own argument.

As the election approaches, let us continually remind ourselves of the standards we hold for our politicians. It is not enough to have a proper debate every once in a while; civil, constructive discussion should be an expectation that is consistently fulfilled.

I am rather cynical about the reality of achieving this standard of debate. Though the Feb. 4 debate seemed to have bypassed the society of the spectacle, the capital-driven nature of nationally-broadcast debates still thrives on drama, and candidates often use this to their advantage for name recognition and airtime. I do hope, however, that this debate sets a precedent for all the presidential candidates to engage each other with respect, fervor, and a spirit of attentiveness. If I’m in the mood for melodrama, Top Chef has always got my back.