No argument over the worth of debates

Is our country really ready to discontinue presidential debates overseen by a nonpartisan commission?

If the national Republican Party has its way, those debates will be no more.

The time-honored American tradition of preelection debates began with the famed 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates held in Illinois just two years before the Civil War. Those events, seven in all, were attended by tens of thousands and elicited the stark differences between the U.S. Senate candidates on the defining issue of the 19th century — slavery. They were covered by a newly "technologically" empowered media that was using the railways, shorthand, and The Associated Press wire to rush the transcripts to printing presses from the Rockies to the Atlantic Ocean.

This idea that candidates for high elected office should face each other and the media and respond to the same questions in equal time and equal opportunity has long been how we attempt to educate the voting public and ultimately have free elections. In a recent The Moscow Times column about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s refusal to participate in presidential debates, Michael Bohm wrote, "Tough questions during debates are the sine qua non of any democratic election." It is no wonder that many world leaders eschew debates in favor of radio call-in shows and staged public appearances, even as, or maybe because, according to Bohm, "the truth comes out in an argument."

The modern version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates is those produced every four years by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, and now we are faced with one of our two national parties refusing to participate in those debates. Governed by a nonpartisan board, the commission determines debate formats, selects locations, chooses moderators, and negotiates the fine points with the candidates. But the foundation of those debates is in place long before the primaries, the result of several years of painstaking planning that remains far outside political considerations.

An election season's earliest debates, generally broadcast and sponsored by a single network, are negotiated by the parties and have relatively small audiences. The four commission debates are shown live on all networks at the same time, in the same manner, and covered by electronic and print media worldwide. With a plain stage free of branding and a rotating moderator, the message is clear: What matters is not the cheers of the primary debate crowds, but the substance, words, and ideas of the candidates.

Millions of people watch, and in the days following the debates, people dissect each candidate’s statements at water coolers and meetings with friends. More than 110 million people around the world watched the 2016 debate at Hofstra University, one of three our school has hosted. At Hofstra, and at colleges and schools across the country, each debate also spurred conversations about democracy and the issues at the heart of the election.

Without such debates, what would we have? Partisan rallies, raucous primary debates, and party-sponsored conventions. We would not have the opportunity to see the final candidates face-to-face, to watch them under pressure, arguing and questioning each other. We would be left with a society further split by political differences, catering to those unwilling to watch or to even engage with each other. Each candidate’s claims and promises might go unquestioned or undisputed. As a citizenry, we would be less prepared and less educated in casting our ballots.

Our choices are the path chosen by Lincoln and Douglas or the path of those who favor political rallies and theater over substantive discussion.

This guest essay reflects the views of former Hofstra University president Stuart Rabinowitz.