I find that debating assumes an equivalence that just isn’t there. If Warren Buffet and Bernie Madoff both want to be your retirement advisor, listening to them both to get their views on investment strategy is not a smart way to make an informed decision.
I was thinking about this while I was typing my former reply. Debate really is outdated in many ways. There is no doubt Biden has more grit than Trump and will work harder and longer to get a problem solved and get a good result. Trump as we know cannot even be bothered to hear someone summarize a briefing let alone read one himself. So half way through the summary he decides upon the tract which seems most ‘tough’ to him, then assigns someone else to do the actual work of making it happen.
Biden by comparison will be as informed as possible before moving forward (what we blue collar workers refer to as “think first- then act”). He will get input from many and then delegate various aspects of the project to people who are either exerts in the field or very enthusiastic about the program, OR possibly both. He will follow up and ask for progress reports. He will be significantly less likely to say “It will be ready in two weeks” because he will not have assigned it to someone who wanted the thing to fail anyway. He will have a detailed plan he and others are invested in – not a vague notion he thinks will play best with his base.
Going further, a verbal debate is inherently unfair to anyone with a speech impediment – especially a stutter. Try this, how about a written debate? Give them both a written test with say two or three big questions on it (and not Covid response or obviously anything concerning national defense, make Putin steal our intelligence through Trump’s cut out man like a professional – not broadcast on news shows).
*How will you repair our relationship with traditional allies? Please provide as much detail as possible.
*Discuss energy needs for the United States (and potentially the world) and your proposed solutions.
*How do you plan to address civil unrest in the next four years?
(I am sure anyone here can form better questions that are important and fair to both candidates.)
Put them in a sound proof booth for five or ten minutes to formulate a plan with no help from advisers, then let them read their responses. Or better yet, let them read their responses while a camera shows what they wrote. In a case like that, Trump’s paper will say: *pencil *chair *man *woman, then a drawing of an alligator and an elephant followed by a promise of a very fine plan coming out in two weeks. [NOTE: Tell Jared to make a very fine plan.]
Of course Biden will have a genuine plan with details (and it will include bringing people together and finding agreement – but that is okay because he does mean it). It will likely be overly optimistic and ideal, but the main points will be attainable most likely.
Another idea to let them show they are up to the job without it being a traditional verbal debate would be an academic quiz style event. They are both getting the same briefings I believe; sit them at desks and ask them questions that are not state secrets and see if either of them can correctly identify what is even being asked. If your opponent gets his question wrong you may buzz in and answer. Trump’s answers would resemble a SNL spoof of Celebrity Jeopardy! Biden’s answers would resemble a real episode of Celebrity Jeopardy. The difference would be that since you are looking for content and not verbal acuity, time should not be a part of the exercise. (It should not be a race- you have time to form an answer and only if you say nothing or get it wrong may your opponent answer. This isn’t about ringing in. Although now that it occurs to me, I would certainly vote for a ticket that contained Ken Jennings and James Holzhauer.)
Verbal debate was ideal for ancient Greece when having the better idea was important. Written testing is much better suited to our current government because you need an idea AND a plan to implement the idea in a way that is most fair to all. Besides ruling a city state is vastly simpler than running the most powerful nation in an advanced age.
Nicely and succinctly put. It is substance, not style you want in important matters.
(That is why we all prefer Biden and cannot understand those who support Trump. They ‘like his style’ and that is enough for them.)
i have a dream about throwing a wrench into the escalator. that would be fun.
I was struck by what seemed like a rare moment of honesty from Trump in his response to the question about his incendiary rhetoric contributing to hate and racial strife. In the C-Span webpage with audio clips and transcripts his response comes at the 1:13:09 mark. First he tries to dismiss the entire BLM movement with the “Pigs in a blanket” reference, then praises himself yet again as the least racist person in the room. Moderator Welker repeats the question, and after claiming the he got various reforms he then says:
“I don’t know what to say. They can say anything, they can say anything.It makes me sad because I am the least racist person”
To me, this rare admission “I don’t know what to say” and “It makes me sad…” comes across as a lonely cry of a man totally lacking in compassion and introspection asking why people don’t love him as he deserves.
You mean the escalator he rode to kick off this whole farce? Geez, you could have left him stranded for hours…
yep, that one. then i go on to imagine the crowd he paid pointing and laughing.
[Insert Mitch Hedberg joke here]