Looking back on at the presidential and VP debates

I must be some kind of glutton for punishment. Not just for watching the presidential debate live, which I had to do for my 2020 election class, but for going back to both again in order to write this article. Because I had to confirm that there really wasn’t any takeaway besides: that was a shameful display. The vice presidential debate was better, but far from good. Whatever I expected from these debates, whatever I thought I might write about, I don’t know, but what we saw wasn’t it. It’s just hard to frame Trump’s, and to a lesser extent Pence’s, debate performance without analogy or comparison, because so little of it was coherent or consistent.

So, let’s start drawing some comparisons. I suppose it’s possible to draw a line between 2020 and 2016, and say that what we saw last night was nothing that hadn’t already been previewed to some degree or another. Trump’s crass disrespect for decorum, norms, and factual record, as well as his insistence on dragging any discussion down to a mud slinging contest is not new. Pence’s skill at stalling, dodging questions, and talking a lot while saying little, is well established. As is Trump’s scarcely concealed disdain for electoral process, rule of law, and his willingness to tolerate and tacitly endorse right wing political violence when it suits him, to anyone who has been paying attention.

Biden and Harris, for their parts, lived up to their expected role as a democratic moderates, openly disavowing many of the labels, slogans, and strawman policies that have been pinned on their campaign by opponents, essentially refusing to be labeled radical left, for whatever that refusal is worth. If you had told me a few days ago that Biden would take this tack, I would’ve thought it a blunder, since the democrats, more than republicans, need to keep all of their ducks in a row to maintain their coalition. In an ironic twist, I think Trump’s performance may have obviated that blowback for Biden. The people I know who identify as leftist are far more alarmed by Trump’s open appeal to white nationalist militias than frustrated with Biden’s doublespeak.

As I’ve been turning over the debates in my head, I’ve been trying to put it in context, and I think back to watching the 2012 debates. If you’re too young to remember, you can take my word that they were not like this, or 2016 for that matter. Aside from acting like grownups, everyone made their pitch in a coherent manner. I won’t claim I held the candidates in equal regard- I already had my opinions on their policy positions. But throughout the debate I could at least see them as equally understandable. I thought Romney was wrong on most things he said, but given his explanation in even a couple minutes, I could see how he came to those positions, and moreover, I could comprehend how a level-headed, good-faith voter could be convinced to vote for him.

I did not get that impression at all from the presidential debate. I cannot imagine an undecided voter, maybe leaning towards Biden, who saw that debate and felt persuaded by Trump. That person may well exist- it’s a big country after all -but I can’t begin to imagine their thinking. Biden’s biggest flaw was that he was at times unconvincing. Trump seemed utterly incomprehensible to anyone who isn’t already leaning towards Trump. He got in a few potshots at Biden, but at least historically, that’s not what the presidential debates are supposed to be about. Biden came prepared for an exchange of ideas and ideals. Trump came prepared to interrupt and contradict Biden.

And perhaps, it occurred to me watching the VP debate, after Trump had stolen the intervening headlines by testing positive, being hospitalized, and then released: maybe that’s the point. Donald Trump is losing solidly in the polls, across the board, and I have to believe he knows that. Perhaps his game isn’t to win, but to try and deny Biden a clean victory. If Trump knows he’s losing on the issues, he loses nothing by derailing the question with a mix of baseless conspiracy theories and provocative endorsements of hate groups. Pence’s question dodging and stalling can be read as a calmer, subtler version of this. Run out the clock, deny what your opponent says, avoid engaging with any issue that isn’t obviously favorable.

Relatedly, if Trump knew he was infected with a virus, rather than take the opportunity to show wisdom and leadership by self isolating according to medical advice, which would rake in sympathy, but concede that COVID is an area in which voters should judge him, it might make sense to him to deny that ground to his opponent by acting mind-bogglingly blasé about the whole affair. Or if there was a growing scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change was worsening a series of deadly weather disasters, it might make sense under that strategy to dispute the science in front of a room full of experts and victims. But I digress.

A zero-sum strategy is at the heart of the hyperpolarization that has paralyzed this country.

What bothers me about this strategy, apart from how hard it is to watch for someone trying to study presidential debates in the historical tradition, is what this strategy implies for the future. Governance is, ideally, a positive sum game. That is, all sides can benefit when working together. Denying your opponent is a strategy for zero-sum standoffs, utterly incongruous with our system of government, which relies on even keeled deliberation leading to eventual compromise. A zero-sum strategy is at the heart of the hyperpolarization that has paralyzed this country. It also contains terrifying implications for the transition of power. The gravity of these implications, of what a failure to respect a free and fair election would represent, make me hope I am wrong. The alternative, that the president may not be responding to any strategy beyond impulse, is cold comfort.