President Trump left, former Vice President Biden right
Presidential debates are conducted to inform voters about the candidates' policies on
the current most controversial issues of the nation. Although questions were asked by
Chris Wallace about relevant subjects (such as the coronavirus, the economy, and the
supreme court to name a few), Tuesday’s presidential debate fell short of giving the
audience a clear course of action from each candidate. Although former Vice President
Joe Biden addressed the American public on a multitude of instances, those efforts were
overshadowed by the pure chaos that filled the screen for 90 minutes. Rules were
agreed upon by both the Republican and Democratic parties, but neither candidate
strictly followed them and it turned into an interrupting war leaving viewers with a
headache. At this point why should they even continue? The Commission on Presidential
Debates is planning on adding more “structure”, but is this a futile effort as there was a
clear process at the last debate and it was still not followed? As a tangential issue, while
engaging in the debate, President Trump emphasized his skepticism on mail-in ballots
and the election process. This can be inferred as the reason why he’s “not sure” if he’ll
step down as president if the time comes. There are many obvious flaws in our country,
however, there is no evidence to support the accusation that mail-in ballots are one of
these flaws. The director of MIT Election Data and Science Lab recently published an op-ed that explained the fraud rate due to this type of voting is 0.00006%.
This leaves the question: is encouraging chaos after election day justified civil
disobedience? Where is the line between trying to create a more reliable system and
undermining democracy?
I do not believe that encouraging chaos after the election day is justified civil disobedience. According to Google, civil disobedience is "the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest." While refusing to step down from office due to a loss by mail in ballots qualifies as civil disobedience, I would not classify it as justified, because like the Attorney General says, there is no evidence to back up his actions; he just seems stubborn. Additionally, if the President does choose to stay in office despite a loss, that could in turn encourage his supporters to follow suit with him and support him, likely through violent protest, which would no longer make it civil.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like our definition of "justified" civil disobedience is one based on fact instead of purpose, and in this scenario I completely agree. I would deign to say that Trump's most invested supporters are following him as a politician (sorta) rather than his policies, so I definitely agree with you that their protest may end up being uncivil, maybe even violent. If Trump doesn't make it clear that he does not condone protests if he is not re-elected I do believe there will be protests across the country.
DeleteI would like to answer the question in the title—I believe that yes, the remaining presidential debates should be cancelled. It pains me to say this, because I believe that presidential candidates discussing American policies and values is an important part of our democracy, but that that is not at all what happened last Tuesday night. As Maya says, it was incredibly chaotic, to the point that neither candidate was able to get their point across without being interrupted. (According to moderator Chris Wallace, Trump interrupted him and Biden 145 times). Additionally, the debate gave President Trump a platform to spread lies and misinformation to millions of viewers with no consequences or facts checking. Examples of this are the misleading cases he used to claim voting by mail is fraudulent, claiming he paid “millions of dollars” in federal income taxes, attacking Hunter Biden with misleading statements and falsehoods, and downplaying the virus and the importance of wearing masks, not to mention spreading hate by refusing to condemn white supremacy. Lastly, the main purpose of debates is to help undecided voters decide who to vote for, however, according to Monmouth University, 87% of people surveyed said that it’s not likely that they will hear something during the debate that will impact their vote. Sadly, it’s clear that the 2020 Presidential Debates cause more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that Trump used this stage to convey not only his own opinions, but as Pence would say (not of Trump of course) his "own facts". I would be weary of cancelling the presidential debates because of the spoken words, since if it is not agreed on by both parties it could be taken as restricting free speech. Although in this case it's almost needed to encourage people to use more reliable sources of news to influence who they will vote for, so I hope in the future they establish more live fact checkers that have power over both or all the candidates. Beyond just reliable news, it concerns me that Trump is outright denying American values of equality and, as you said, failing to condemn white supremacy. I definitely agree that these Presidential Debates may end poorly for democracy, news, politics, and foreign view on the US.
DeleteEncouraging chaos after an election is never justified. Working to undermine fundamental principles of a democracy (a free fair election with peaceful transition of power) is not justifiable and is not part of working to make a more reliable system.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that the debates should be cancelled, if only for the reason Trump would be able to argue Joe Biden is hiding from a debate. Trump has already been trying to push that narrative, with a campaign manager saying things like "We’re already seeing the liberal left, the liberal media trying to create trap doors for Joe Biden to escape his commitment and obligations to debate Donald Trump on a debate stage in front of the American people." Better would be to actually enforce the rules of the debate cutting Trump's mic if necessary.
I disagree with the claim that AG Barr is contradicting Trump's narrative of mail in ballots fraud, since Barr has said "There's so many occasions for fraud there that cannot be policed. I think it would be very bad. But one of the things I mentioned was the possibility of counterfeiting" (though amusingly, when asked whether he had evidence for this concern, Barr said "No, it's obvious"). Barr's spreading of unsubstantiated claims is immensely concerning.
I do agree that Trump would argue that Biden was hiding from a debate, even though because of the safety of his basement Biden is not hospitalized for contracting the Corona. The new rules may not work, and even if they do the debate will be functioning as a tradition this year because of the lack of substance.
DeleteYou are absolutely correct about my mistake with AG Barr, and I will edit it right now. I was reading through this article and misread the content on Barr. Whoops! https://www.npr.org/2020/06/04/864899178/why-is-voting-by-mail-suddenly-controversial-heres-what-you-need-to-know#fraud
I agree that making new rules for these debates would be pointless. Like you said rules are stated and not followed nor are they enforced. It becomes a yelling match of two people talking over each other and the moderator who attempts to keep the order. I think that presidential debates are supposed to answer important questions about americas values, policies (like Ella was saying). But I think that lots of them just turn into arguments instead of respectful debates, and the candidates just avoid questions and criticize the others opinions. It can be confusing to watch, especially when it is supposed to be a more professional type of discussion, not a screaming match.
DeleteSorry! I didn't mean to post that as a reply, I meant to post it as a separate comment, my bad!
DeleteI agree that making new rules for these debates would be pointless. Like you said rules are stated and not followed nor are they enforced. It becomes a yelling match of two people talking over each other and the moderator who attempts to keep the order. I think that presidential debates are supposed to answer important questions about americas values, policies (like Ella was saying). But I think that lots of them just turn into arguments instead of respectful debates, and the candidates just avoid questions and criticize the others opinions. It can be confusing to watch, especially when it is supposed to be a more professional type of discussion, not a screaming match.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that encouraging chaos after election day should be justified. With such a small, almost non-existent statistical percentage of voter fraud, there really isn't strong evidence that election results would be rigged. Calling for protest and unrest just because things might not, or could, go your way is simply childish. This voting system has persisted for 223 years, and there isn't clear cause to bring changes to it now.
ReplyDeleteThis post is closed and no longer accepting comments.
ReplyDelete