“The 360” shows diverse perspectives on the day’s main news and debates.
What is happening
The Republican National Committee announced last week that it would withdraw from the Commission on Presidential Debates due to allegations that the organization is biased in favor of Democrats.
The move is the latest escalation of an ongoing disagreement between the RNC and the commission, which has become a major target of criticism from the then-president. donald trump during the 2020 election cycle. RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel claimed in a statement announcing the decision that had “refused to enact simple, commonsense reforms to help ensure fair debates.”
His statement outlined specific complaints with the commission, many of them echoing specific complaints that Trump raised at the time of his debates with Joe Biden two years ago. The RNC accused the committee of “making unilateral changes” to the debate format, possibly referring to a which was added after Trump repeatedly interrupted Biden’s answers during their first debate, as well as the decision to following Trump’s attack on COVID-19. That second debate was canceled because Trump refused to participate.
Although they have become a staple of election cycles in the modern era, presidential debates are a relatively new phenomenon. The first televised debate, between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, was held in 1960. The next one only took place 16 years later. In the late 1980s, after some discontent with the way the debates were being conducted, Democratic and Republican leaders worked together to establish the Commission on Presidential Debates. The organization has been in charge of all major party presidential debates since 1988.
Why is there debate?
Few commentators would argue that the format of the presidential debate is beyond criticism. Many observers lamented the increasing focus on spectacle at the expense of substance. But political analysts fear that the RNC’s decision means the end of an institution that, for all its flaws, still provides voters with the only opportunity to see the two competing candidates directly address the issues.
Critics of the decision, especially those on the left, argue that Republicans no longer feel an obligation to articulate their vision for the country to voters and are trying to protect their candidates from the setback that could follow a poor debate performance. . As proof, critics point to a number of competing in this year’s intermediate exams that before the primaries. Others say the move represents how Trump’s political style, which is in part defined by an abject rejection of any person or group that criticizes him, has come to dominate the party as a whole.
Some conservatives have countered that, while perhaps a bit exaggerated, the RNC’s complaints about the commission are legitimate. They say ending the Commission’s monopoly on presidential debates could lead to a new model that could be more effective in informing voters. Others simply believe that presidential debates are so fragmented that the country would be better off without them.
What is the next
McDaniel emphasized that the RNC is “not moving away from debates entirely” and said the party will explore “other avenues for candidates to have a free and fair forum.” It’s unclear what alternatives Republicans are considering or whether Democrats would agree to participate.
Perspectives
The RNC’s decision could be a step toward more valuable debate formats
“After 35 years of the commission’s glacial dominance over debates, it is time to relax and welcome new ideas and new actors. With the next set of general election debates more than two years away, we have time to resolve the issue. Let the debate about debates begin.” -João Fundo,
Reports of the death of presidential debates are greatly exaggerated
“The usual suspects are exalting this as a Republican Party attack on democracy and the American way of life. Where is the fainting couch? The reality is that sidelining the debate committee will only put presidential campaigns back in charge. The topics and formats of debate will be under negotiation between the Republican and Democratic nominees.” – Essay,
The country is better off without presidential debates
“It wouldn’t be a great loss… if we skipped debates next cycle – and perhaps forever. If this is the end of the practice, good riddance. -Samuel Goldman,
The Republican Party has no vision for the country to promote in debates
“It should come as no surprise that the entire Republican Party is apparently behind this embarrassing turn of events. After all, the Republicans had no platform in 2020 and they won’t have one in 2024. … This is a party that has very few ideas, and the ones they do have are wildly unpopular and increasingly out of touch with the reality of the country’s problems. ” -Charles P. Pierce,
Debates are far from perfect, but they are still valuable
“It is true that the presidential debates, watched by millions of people, have increasingly become a flawed and superficial television show. Still, they remain the best opportunity for Americans to see their two candidates on the same stage, talking about important issues and answering questions from independent moderators.” -Editorial,
It makes strategic sense for Republicans to stay away from debates
“The media – a traditional arbiter of many debates – is so reviled by Republican primary voters that campaigns now recognize there may be more to gain by criticizing the process than by participating. There has also been a rise in self-funding and celebrity candidates in 2022 whose inexperience in debates and fears of late-campaign mistakes may be leading them to avoid debates altogether.” -David Siders,
The decision is indicative of the Republican Party’s deeply ingrained ‘Us versus Them’ mentality
“As for the Republicans? Refusal to participate due to alleged prejudice fits into their long-term agenda of undermining the concept of political neutrality. … It’s one thing to say that everyone has prejudices; It’s another thing to say that they are all partisan Democrats or partisan Republicans. That was never true in the U.S. and it’s still not true now.” -Jonathan Bernstein,
It could be a strategic mistake for the Republican Party to withdraw from the debates
“Republicans have been quite confident in their debate performance in the last few elections. … Given this confidence, former President Trump’s flirtation with another run in 2024, and polls suggesting he would be the Republican frontrunner, he should embrace the opportunity to face the man who beat him in the 2020 race.” -John Hudak,
Debates can continue without the commission, but there could be chaos ahead
“The Commission on Presidential Debates has been doing this for the last few decades, but it was not the first; they will not be the last. I don’t think anyone will cry if any debates we have in the next cycle are not sponsored by the commission. But it will be a kind of wild west.” — Aaron Kall, debate expert, for
Republicans see any institution that defends democracy as a threat
“As Republican hostility toward democracy grows, the party is targeting institutions that help underpin our democracy. The Commission on Presidential Debates process was good while it lasted.” -Steve Benen,
The next version of the debates could be truly biased against one party
“The debates – if they take place – would be conducted under rules negotiated and defined by political campaigns and parties, without the approval of an independent body. To use one of Mr. Trump’s favorite words, they could be rigged.” -Editorial,
Is there a topic you would like to see covered on “The 360”? Send your suggestions to the360@yahoonews.com.
Photographic illustration: Yahoo News; photos: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
