Presumably, you were as stunned as I to learn this week that President Biden pitched two debate dates to the criminal defendant – and the criminal defendant said yes. The first clash – or train wreck, or God knows what it might be – is officially slated for June 27, just five weeks away; the second is set for September.
I have thoughts.
For starters, don’t be surprised if the criminal defendant worms out of it. He impulsively agreed to the Biden campaign’s provisos for these debates – (1) No live audience, i.e., no MAGA puppets to cheer his lies and demagoguery, (2) A microphone cut off, i.e., no amplified rants beyond the strict time limit, (3) No third party candidates, i.e., no RFK Jr./Jill Stein/Cornel West stage clutter, i.e., no free advertising for any lefty alternatives to Joe, and (4) the earliest ever debate date, to help Joe draw a sharp contrast between a president in command of facts and a word-slurring criminal defendant – who, by June 27, could be a convicted felon.
So don’t be surprised if the guy bails, with bone-spur excuses about how the conditions are “rigged” against him; indeed, RNC puppet chairwoman Lara Trump is already complaining that all debates by definition are “rigged” for Biden, and some MAGA surrogates are already incensed that Jake Tapper will co-helm the June gig. (Tapper has a habit of fact-checking lies, thus rendering him unsuitable.)
But let’s assume the shows go on. The buzz-o-sphere is predictably replete with speculation about Why This Is Bad For Biden (next up: why the Dow historically hitting 40,000 is Bad for Biden). Feel free to surf those hot takes. I’m here with a more bullish assessment.
Without the spectacle of a disruptive live audience, the president will have the opportunity to talk about substance – for instance, the post-pandemic economy that is now widely recognized as the strongest in the western world; the cratering of abortion rights, thanks to the MAGA-infested Supreme Court that the criminal defendant brags about; the record-high investments in fighting climate change; the more than 40,000 road, bridge, train, and airport projects launched in all 50 states by Biden’s infrastructure law. And, presumably, in the quiet studio environment, he’ll have the time and opportunity to refute the criminal defendant’s lies (like perhaps his new one about how foreign nations are emptying out their insane asylums and sneaking the patients into America); and he can point out that the criminal defendant’s one legislative achievement – tax cuts for the richest Americans – ballooned the federal deficit and would so again because tax cuts like that are still on the MAGA agenda.
Granted, most TV viewers don’t tune in for substance, much less retain it. What matters most are the optics. Who will look most presidential – the incumbent who kicked ass in his last two State of the Union speeches, or the defendant who falls asleep at his criminal trial and lauds “the late, great Hannibal Lecter”?
Mark McKinnon, a former media advisor to George W. Bush, said this week (and I agree) that a big knock on Biden “has been that he’s too old and not up to the job. Well, the best way for him to prove that he’s still got the juice is to get on the debate stage…and show that it is the ex-prez, not the current prez, who is unfit, weak or weakened, and failing mentally. Not a very high bar, actually…It’s a dangerous and risky strategy. And it’s brilliant.”
Brilliant, if it works. I have faith. As Emily Dickinson wrote: “Hope is the thing with feathers / That perches in the soul“
Great. So presumably there will be a “debate”, which in the US is more like a simultaneous, dual news conference, but without follow-up questions. (I always cringe at that.)
I hope it is clear that one particular question should definitely be asked: When is it legitimate for US citizens to violently protest against their government (e.g., after a fraudulent election or an innocent citizen is murdered by law enforcement)?
A more than basic citizenship question would certainly be appropriate (for the electorate as well as the candidates!). Off the top of my head: Outline the contents of any Constitutional Amendment outside of the Bill of Rights. What do you regard as the most important Supreme Court decision ever? Are there provisions within the Constitution that permit it to be suspended or ignored even for one day?
More topical, but still historical: What do you regard as the most important lesson learned from the pandemic? In hindsight, was your administration’s response to that crisis optimal?
Yet more topical: What should US policy be with Israel?
The best questions provoke thoughtfulness, even from the audience.
In my fantasies (I am full of them), I pine for a Jeopardy-like format (cue theme music please) where some questions are not spoken but simply displayed as text (and possibly with graphs!) to test the candidates’ non-verbal analytical comprehension skills (life is so unfair) and to which responses are also typed (not spoken). Composing one’s thoughts as text is far more deliberative and no less revealing than launching into a tirade, as irresponsible politicians are so often inclined to do.