By Robert Burch
Artwork by Daniel Moroze 
After the disastrous showdowns between Trump and Biden in their 2020 contest for the presidency, the last thing people want to do is sit through another presidential debate. As it turns out, we might not get the chance to. Presidential debates could become a thing of the past due to a recent move by the Republican Party.
In January, the Republican National Committee (RNC) announced that if the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) did not implement changes that the RNC demanded, they would try to bar any Republican candidates from participating in CPD debates. Presidential and vice-presidential debates are a key part of the U.S. electoral process, helping millions of Americans decide who to vote for. If the RNC follows this plan, it could mark the end of the CPD and presidential debates as we know them.
The CPD is a nonpartisan organization started by both the Republican and Democratic parties with the goal of “taking control of the presidential debates.” While the commission has existed since 1987, presidential debates have been consistently held since 1976. Washington University in St. Louis has hosted more debates than any other institution, including four presidential debates (1992, 2000, 2004, 2016) and one vice-presidential debate (2008). Presidential debates follow the ideal that Americans should get to compare their candidates on a national stage. Although nowadays the internet might deliver extensive amounts of information about candidates, debates go farther, showing us candidates’ undoctored thoughts, beliefs, and actions. It is harder for candidates to just tell voters what they want to hear or manipulate speech excerpts to appear favorable when they are being held accountable on live TV by other candidates, moderators, and millions of Americans. Debates give Americans a glimpse into what a candidate’s presidency could be like. Ending this process would destroy much-needed political transparency.
As the RNC and its candidates have become more right-wing, their respect for political norms has continued to rot. Even just examining debates, Republicans have trampled the tradition of respectful discourse. For instance, the chaotic 2016 Republican Primary Debates included a full stage of candidates trading personal insults, shouting over each other, and sharing bizarre stories about things like hand size. Additionally, Republican 2020 debate performances were characterized by Trump and Pences’ repeated interjection of childish insults and condescending interruptions over Biden and Harris. Finally, look at Donald Trump’s refusal to participate in two 2016 Republican Primary debates, Trump’s decision to skip the second 2020 debate, and David Perdue’s refusal to debate Jon Ossoff in their Georgia Senate runoff. There are countless examples, but the trend is clear: the RNC has chosen to insulate their candidates from public accountability instead of running people who live up to the standards American voters deserve.
Trump’s success in 2016, proves that skipping debates and ignoring political norms works in Republican primaries as candidates vie for the support of an increasingly anti-establishment voter base. However, all evidence suggests that debate skipping harms candidates in general elections. David Purdue’s refusal to debate Jon Ossoff towards the end of their senate runoff proves just that. The debate was held despite Purdue’s absence, allowing Ossoff an uninterrupted opportunity to promote his own campaign while portraying his opponent as a “coward” who would not show up for his constituents. Ossoff went on to unseat Purdue. Skipping general election debates also harmed Republicans in the 2020 presidential election. Trump’s decision to skip the second debate and host a town hall came at a time he desperately needed to score points against Biden. Although the debate was canceled following Trump’s decision, Biden hosted a competing town hall and came out the night with higher ratings and a more solidified standing as a frontrunner. Abandoning debates may work in primaries, but it is an extremely risky move in the general election.
By making a decision so provably damaging to their electoral prospects, the RNC is signaling they will continue to follow in Trump’s footsteps and employ electoral strategies aimed at bending democracy to their favor while calling fraud when these strategies fail. Instead of running conventional conservatives who debate better and appeal to more voters, the RNC seems intent on relying heavily on core supporters to deliver elections for extreme candidates. This analysis is further supported by the party’s recent election fraud conspiracy theories, their crusade against voter rights, and their gerrymandering of election maps to produce artificially red districts. It is up to speculation whether the tradition of presidential debates will be reborn in a way that helps restore the country’s rotting democratic processes. Whatever the case, presidential debates have caused important developments in past elections, have kept both parties in check, and were a tradition that brought elections closer to the people. As we enter an uncertain time for our country and democracy, this tradition and its benefits for our elections will truly be missed.