By now, most of us have probably seen, or at least heard about the most recent debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. If you’re like me, and you actually watched the debate, it would be difficult to argue that it wasn’t an unmitigated crap show. Biden, by most accounts, stumbled through the entire ninety minutes barely able to make a coherent point or argument, and it would be easier to count the factual statements that Trump made versus those that weren’t. Public pundits, supporters, adversaries of each candidate, and several editorial boards for media outlets are now debating the fitness of either candidate. Many for Biden, and some for Trump are saying that they should bow out of the race for better or more fitting candidates. Many feel and have stated that Biden should step aside for someone younger and more capable of putting up what will undoubtedly be a tough campaign fight against Trump. Advocates for Trump to step aside feel that he should walk away and allow a candidate to step in who’s less polarizing and controversial; someone who can more effectively swing voters in the middle of the electorate. The data around Trump as a political figure has never shown that he attracts the undecided voter or voters who don’t strictly vote along party lines. Yet and still, what I hope to have been evidenced out in that debate is that the most significant debate we must now have is not one about who won between Trump and Biden, or who performed better in that debate. We must now debate about the future and fate of our country and ask ourselves which of these candidates is better for our future state. These are the choices we have; like it or not. All the writing would appear to be on the wall, in this election, more than in others preceding it, America’s direction and the type of country we will be and have, will be greatly affected by the outcome.
Without going point for point, which I feel there’s no point in doing given the overall product that was delivered on June 27th, there are a few overarching points that were evidently displayed in my opinion during and as a result of that debate. What I felt was most prominently on display is that no matter what you may have thought about the arguments being made between the two, Biden lost the show. Let’s be honest, these debates are as much about the show as they are about the points or facts being argued. Trump looked and sounded stronger and more confident, while Biden looked and sounded weak and feeble; he looked aged and less capable. I knew it was going to be a long night for Biden after he spoke his first words and tried to clear his throat to no avail. Within minutes it was evident that his voice had gone hoarse, there would be no clearing that, and that debating for the next ninety minutes with that voice would be an uphill challenge.
Going in, Biden’s main objective was to quiet the rumblings in the media and amongst many voters that he may be too old to effectively carry out the job of being president for four more years. In fact, the strength of Biden’s voice was specifically one of the many issues that had been reported in the media from sources “who were close to the administration.” It was noted in these reports that he’d become difficult to hear in meetings due to an inability to strongly project his voice. It had been reported that he couldn’t formulate coherent arguments and needed note cards to aid with his ability to recall facts and data. In his biggest opportunity to counter that narrative and dispel those concerns, Biden managed to actually heighten the concerns and turn up the volume on the narrative. Whether his performance was impacted by a cold, hence the hoarse voice and impaired cognitive abilities, or other factors, Biden was also unable to counter Trump or fact check him in real time. One could reasonably argue that accomplishing that would be a challenge for anyone, however. Trump’s rolling stream of non-factual statements and responses could render any debate opponent less effective because of the sheer volume. It would be hard for anyone to stand in front of that fire hose and stop all of the water from getting by, but Biden allowed it to knock him over. Biden was barely able to counter any of Trump’s false statements. Performing in a debate is nothing like performing in the role of president, but it’s very reasonable for voters to be concerned about Biden’s level of acuity in light of his inability to effectively counter what were largely predictable assertions by Trump.
And now, on to former President Trump and his performance. Supporters would probably proclaim the debate as a “mission accomplished” moment for Trump. A big objective of theirs going in was to prove that President Biden was no longer able to be effective in his current role and that Trump was more fit to be president again. The argument could definitely be made that Trump, by virtue of doing what he does, did just that. He looked stronger and more physically capable of handling what most consider to be the most challenging job in the world. From the perspective of an objective observer, however, calling Trump’s performance a resounding victory against a visibly diminished Biden would be a stretch. He consistently made false accusations, and consistently stated inaccuracies about his own record while in office. Many of these non-facts are verifiable via published court decisions, his record while being president, and the many video and audio recordings of Trump’s words and actions over the years. Yet, during this debate, these non-factual statements were mostly unmoderated, by the debate moderators or President Biden, which played right into Trump’s strategy. Rather than debating a position on policy or ideology, Trump thrives in environments where his challenges with conveying facts go unchecked. Trump needs his target audience to buy what he’s selling wholesale. Challenging anything he says or does is equal to challenging his authority, and him as an authority. Trump relies on and has managed to cultivate a core of supporters who believe in him as an entitled figure. Many of his followers have what could be more appropriately described as a faith in him. They believe that he is a product of divine placement; therefore, they’re not making objective assessments of his fitness. Trump as a brand is a baked cake. Those that support him either blindly follow what he says without question, or they choose to ignore his deficiencies for reasons they’ve deemed more important. This is why Biden’s campaign was more impacted by his poor debate performance. On the side of Democrats, assessments are actually being made by voters and supporters about Biden’s ability to campaign against Trump and successfully lead subsequently. Supporters of Trump, conversely, are all-in. Trump has barely been questioned, or substantially challenged publicly from within his party since he won the nomination for candidacy in the 2016 presidential race. Despite a few calls by the media and a few insiders for him to step aside due to his pervasive inability to be factual or his lack of presidential demeanor, Trump’s support will mostly not wain as a result of his performance. There’s truly little he could do to change his position. Many in his camp or on his side would’ve considered the debate a victory for him if he actually physically showed up, first and foremost, and wasn’t subsequently completely steamrolled by Biden. Absent of a virtual knockout by Biden, Trump advocates would have most likely magnified any ray of light and spun pieces of his performance into an overall victory where the least bit possible; so, the onus of combatting scrutiny in the debate was almost completely and squarely placed on Biden.
I found it reasonable to question the idea of the debate for Biden from the outset. When the debate was announced, anyone paying attention knew that this could be a make-or-break moment for Biden’s campaign. He’d need to show life and vigor and demonstrate that he was strong enough and mentally capable of winning against Trump before again becoming the most prominent leader in the world after the fact. Four years is a long time, and it’s been well-documented that being president ages one as rapidly as any occupation that exists. I knew that Biden would need to prove, on as big of a stage as there’s ever been, that he hadn’t been drastically impacted cognitively by the past four years. Many would consider his presidency to have been one of the more challenging in history given the circumstances he had to step into in the midst of COVID and the impact it was having on the health of US citizens and our economy, and by extension the world’s citizens and the global economy. His presidency is also viewed by many as one of the most historically consequential, given the extreme cultural polarization that’s swept over the nation for various reasons (many would argue Trump and his movement the main culprit). The terms of the debate, all determined by the Biden camp, would need to be favorable for Biden, all things considered; and so would the circumstances surrounding the lead-up. Those things, however, were indeed not favorable, in my opinion.
Though I’m positive they were designed to have the opposite effect, it wouldn’t be difficult to challenge the decisions that were made in positioning Biden via the terms that were set. The President’s schedule was still busy leading up to the debate, in spite of the debate being scheduled months before taking place. More time should’ve probably been allotted for rest and prep. After all, who’d know that Biden would probably need that more than the people closest to him; his handlers? The late 9 pm start time was also a questionable decision. Who’s as sharp as they’re capable of being that late at night? No offense to any octogenarians out there who may be reading, but certainly not an eighty-one-year-old who’s been serving as the President of the United States for the past three and a half years. The muted mics decision was questionable going in as well. Sure, Trump wouldn’t be able to interrupt or ramble on as to exhaust time, but this further put the responsibility on Biden to perform against Trump and coherently carry his thoughts throughout the entirety of his allotted times to speak. Sans an audience in attendance at the venue to provide any reactions, this was a term that seemed certain to work against Biden since Trump is much more well-versed at filling time and speaking off-script. Having no crowd to react to what was being said also played into Trump’s preference for not being challenged or checked when he asserts falsehoods or misspeaks. Even Biden’s placement on the right side of the stage during the debate seemed to play against him. It often appeared that he was speaking to or toward something or someone outside of the camera’s frame of focus, which made him appear to have less wherewithal. I’m not the only one who felt that the deck was stacked against Biden going in (again I assert, by his own team), but how difficult could, or should it be for a sitting president to accomplish the bare minimum feat of remaining energetic, coherent, and present throughout a ninety-minute debate?
Trump, as we all know, also faced his own set of challenges coming into the debate. He was not far removed from a court battle in which he was convicted on thirty-four felony counts; convictions for which he’s yet been sentenced. That was only a part of the eighty-eight criminal charges Trump has been facing this year. Trump’s legal woes have been compounded by the costs associated with defending himself against all these charges. Before legal fees, Trump has lost over 540 million dollars in court judgments in the past year alone. Trump, like Biden, has also faced a ton of media scrutiny. He’s been publicly criticized for almost everything he’s done publicly since he launched his candidacy for the 2016 election. His candidacy was controversial and harshly criticized, his actual term as president that ended with January 6th and the subsequent fallout was controversial and highly criticized, the criminal charges levied against him have left him open to harsh judgement and criticism, and how he’s conducting his current campaign is highly controversial and harshly and largely criticized. Yet, in the face of all that, and unlike Biden, Trump is a proven performance artist capable of commanding a room and demanding the camera’s attention. The success of Trump’s whole public life has been contingent upon him effectively projecting a presence of stature. He’s proven time and again that he’s able to thrive in the face of extreme adversity, and the June 27 debate was another example of his uncanny ability to do just that. Nothing about Trump’s disposition, appearance or how he sounded indicated or suggested that he was facing such extreme personal and professional challenges. Trump appeared to be in prime form, and handily in control of his less capable opponent.
So, with the conclusion of that debate comes the more salient debate, the one we must have with and amongst ourselves. Given what we saw of these two candidates, who do we see as most fitting or deserving of being our next president? Considering what we observed, there could be another entire argument unto itself made about fitting versus deserving, but that’s not a matter for this blog, or for this blogger to take up right now. On the one hand, we have a candidate whom we trust to be well-meaning and decent; but is he still capable of being up for the task at-hand? Specifically, the task that many feel most paramount; first and foremost, would be winning the next election to prevent what many perceive as a threat to how our government currently functions and operates. Yes, he must also be able to govern effectively, but he must first win. I think I can say this with a fair amount of certainty, those hoping and advocating for another candidate are most likely not focusing their time productively. The chances of either not being the candidate for their respective parties once the ballots are published is slim to none. At this point, very few factors outside of themselves can move either of these candidates from their posts. On the other hand, we have a candidate who’s also been there before, but has been (to say the least,) highly controversial, unpredictable, and verifiably loose with facts. Judging from the last debate, they are who we thought they were, and yet here we are with them as our only logistical options. So, what are we going to do, America? Who are we going to be? Tune in and let the debate begin.
Leave a Reply