It’s a hot day in Ottawa, Illinois as you join the hustle and bustle of a large crowd in a grassy field. People have come from all over the countryside, arriving throughout the day in their horse-drawn carriages to stand for hours in the burning sun. Suddenly, the crowd becomes quiet, and you watch as a short, feisty senator climbs up to speak to the assembled 10,000 people. He talks for an hour while both young and old stand on aching feet, but not once does the audience become disengaged. They reply heartily to his questions, laugh at his jokes, and cheer at every turn. The senator, Stephen Douglas by name, is then followed by a tall, gaunt lawyer, who responds to Douglas’ remarks for a full hour and a half. To end the afternoon, Douglas once more mounts the stage, holding forth for thirty minutes to rebut what the upstart lawyer known as Abraham Lincoln has just said. In all, the debate takes over three hours and covers just one major topic.
Fast forward about 166 years to 2024 and imagine you’re sitting on a couch in your living room, watching the TV screen as two nominees mount the stage to introduce themselves and their policies to the public. The debate, whether it’s between prospective presidents or vice presidents, moves at lightning speed. First, one candidate has two minutes to answer a predetermined question. The other candidate is then allowed two minutes for rebuttal. This is followed by several more 60 second timeslots for each candidate to say a little more. Throughout, the moderators chide and scold as the candidates continually run out of time to make their point. As the two candidates thresh out an issue they appear to disagree on, the moderators may lose their patience, panic, and shut down the microphones. “Gentlemen, the audience can’t hear you because your mics are cut. We have so much we want to get to,” they’ll say before gracing the camera with patronizing smiles and rushing the debate on to the next topic.
In these modern political debates, the question that begs asking is this: how can anything be “gotten to” if the two parties are never allowed to get to the heart of an issue? If it took Douglas and Lincoln hours to make their stances clear regarding one issue, how can candidates today reach any sort of conclusion on a multifaceted issue such as the “economy” or “the border” in the six to eight minutes allotted during a debate? They can’t. And the sad thing is, they aren’t meant to.
Political debates in Lincoln’s day had one fundamental goal, encapsulated well in a statement made by Stephen Douglas during that scorching day in Ottawa. “I desire,” he explained, “to address myself to your judgment, your understanding, and your consciences, and not to your passions or your enthusiasm.” In other words, Lincoln and Douglas wanted the audience to hear a reasonable discussion of what was at stake and be well equipped to choose their position wisely. The format of debates in Douglas’ and Lincoln’s days were designed to cater to this purpose. The amount of time given the candidates enabled them to clearly portray to the public the history of the issue at hand, the background knowledge required for full understanding, the nuances involved, the views of the other candidate, their own policy, and the results of what enacting different policies would be. This format gave time for the audience to fully comprehend how giving power to either side would impact their lives.
Today’s debates, on the other hand, are often meant to create quick emotional responses in their audiences and stir allegiances to one side or the other. News outlets conduct debates to be as compatible with this purpose as possible. The candidates, understandably wanting to gain the most votes they can through their statements, use their stunted allotment of time to give a quick description of how they would be better for America than the administration of their opponent. This approach to debate gives the audience immediate emotional responses as their beliefs are either challenged or supported in a rapid barrage of words. The arousal of passion that results is not able to be refuted or supported by evidence and rational thought before the next candidate creates yet another emotional response in their viewers.
Have debates become emotional roller coaster rides? They may be helpful in providing glimpses of someone’s character and civility, but by a simple examination of our own motivations for watching them we see that their purpose has drastically changed. We sit on the edges of our couches waiting to see not who has the best evidence or support for their argument but whether our chosen champion will have the best roast or manage the most coherent string of canned speeches. As you watch political debates in the future, be wary of uninformed gut reactions and remind yourself that what you are watching may not appeal to rational thought.
