That’s a quote from a recent Atlantic post from Tom Nichols, and it gets to the absurdity of the debate for me. The policies of either candidate are secondary if one of the candidates doesn’t respect the rule of law, the Constitution or even facts. Briefly touching on the latter to go into the former seems wrong to me. Doing so implies that a candidate that rejects key beliefs and norms for a liberal democracy is a viable candidate. Maybe it’s just me, but I think that’s absurd, and the press sending this is message is a major failing on their part.
Yeah it’s really not, although it is something more than political stumping. The latter you refer to is the rejection of the rule of law. What is the former? The debate?
Polling — and even voting — clearly show that many people in this country also do not value the rule of law. Which means a debate should be had if that’s truly what’s on the ballot. So in a way I disagree. Yes, the greater issue is the issue you point out. However, I don’t understand this “failing” on the media’s part by allowing whatever we call Tuesday night’s event to happen. The media just broadcast it and commented on it. Isn’t the debate held by some other, non-media entity?
Policies (where Democrats and Republicans have legitimate disagreement–e.g., taxes, gun control, climate change, etc.) When debate moderators (or the press coverage) moves on Trump’s authoritarian behavior, going into his policies relative to Harris’s, to me, this signals that his authoritarian behavior is on the same level as his different policy positions. This seems really wrong and a major failing in my view.
Should the press really take an agnostic position on the rule of law and the Constitution–that is, they can frame a rejection of these as an acceptable and reasonable difference of opinion from politicians who embrace them?
This seems nuts to me. If I had to take a wild guess, I would say most reasonable Americans would agree with me.
Indeed, I suspect this is partly why the race is so close. Consider this possible outlook from many reasonable Americans, who are not strongly partisan news junkies:
When a debate treats Trump’s authoritarian behavior on par with policies differences with Harris, this creates an overall narrative framework that he’s basically a normal and acceptable candidate in a liberal democracy. Call it a kind of laundering of authoritarianism.
OK, but do you think the debate–and the overall coverage–conveys this clearly? I don’t think so.
By the way, part of Trump’s authoritarian behaviors involves his brazen lies and utter bad faith. To me, the evidence and pervasive pattern of behavior is so strong, this is an uncontroversial view. To have a normal debate glosses over this problem and suggests that claims of Trump’s mendacity and bad faith are simply hyper-partisan exaggerations.
I have said debates are useless to me as a voter, so I don’t know how to feel about the way the debates are covered. I was just trying to understand what you were saying, and I think I get it.
So are you saying in the absence of repeatedly commenting on the candidate’s threat to democracy in this county, there should be no televised face-to-face?
If one of the candidate’s commitment to the Constitution and rule of law is seriously in doubt; if the candidate has a long track record of operating in bad faith–the moderators have to bring this out in the open and confront the candidate about this in my view.
To touch on these matters and then move on makes not only a mockery of a debate, but also mislead the public, making Trump seem a more acceptable and viable candidate than he should be.