The First Presidential Debate: Trump v Biden

What is the purpose of a presidential debate? Why is it that it is never staged as a debate, but is rather a question and answer and rebuttal -- then move on?

How would a debate be conducted? It cannot be about one's past performance, both candidates will lie or rationalize or avoid answering. It cannot be about what will be done in the future, both candidates will promise and imagine and pretend they can predict the future.

What does that leave? What do debates typically have as topics? I have recast the first debate topics as they might appropriately be used. I might add that no moderator should preface the question with any comment whatsoever. These specific questions, I believe, would direct the candidates to speak clearly on issues of importance. I believe they would also show clear differences in the two candidates.

(1) Should a president nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court and ask for the Senate's consent in the weeks before a presidential election?

Analysis: Biden, I believe, would argue that presidents in the past did not go through the confirmation process during the period before an election. This allows voters to affect the choice of Supreme Court justice. Trump would argue that this is his sworn duty and the duty of the Senate is to advise the president and consent if it deems the candidate worthy. I believe, in such a debate, Trump would have the winning hand, Duty supersedes any claim about what may have happened in actual practice. Supreme Court justices are not elected by voters, so elections should be irrelevant to appointments. Trump might also note that just 114 justices who have served over the past 231 years, so appointments occur about once every two years. The chance of an appointment occurring just prior to a presidential election are relatively small.

(2) Should businesses, sports, and other activities be limited by government action in response to a virus?

Analysis: Biden has publicly stated that businesses cannot resume until the virus is controlled. However, this practice has never been adopted in response to past viruses, despite the tens of thousands who have died each year. He would win with the public, which has accepted this approach as necessary. Trump might choose a weak view of the opposite, that such things should be limited to a very slight degree. On his side would be that it is not practical to destroy the lives of millions in the vain hope of preventing an airborne virus from infecting people. When some businesses are closed, many must remain open for the society to function, and these will permit the virus to continue its course until humans adapt.

(3) Should government direct the economy?

Analysis: Biden clearly takes the socialist position on this. He would use taxes and spending to redirect the economy to accomplish goals that he and his fellow politicians would select. Trump would argue that the private sector should be given the maximum freedom to do what works. The public might split on this. Most people have accepted government regulating, taxing, subsidizing, and managing large parts of the economy. Others still believe the market economy makes the best use of resources and produces the best results for people.

(4) Should limits be placed on protests as a means of reducing violence?

Analysis: Biden might have some trouble here. I believe he would argue that protests are a constitutional right and cannot be limited or controlled by government. Trump would argue that restrictions to prevent violence would be appropriate and necessary. I'd give this round to Trump.

(5) Is it possible for an election to be won by actions that distort the will of the voter?

Analysis: Biden would say that it is not possible and that there has been no significant fraud in past elections. Here, if Trump is properly armed with the facts, he might lay out in detail all of the frauds that have occurred and the ease with which they might occur. I'd give this round to Trump.

Judgment: I would score this 3-2 for Trump.