Despite their contrasting political ideologies and campaigns, President Biden and his predecessor, Trump, forged a deal to engage in debates. Yet, as anticipated, intense contention emerged shortly thereafter.
In an exceptional proposal, both Biden and Trump agreed to extend the typical three-debate format by one more, going for four debates. The slated additional debate would be a forum for addressing key issues raised in the lead-up to the November election. The notes from the negotiation reveal that the Trump campaign requested the additional debate while the Biden side counterproposed the participation of both candidates in a town hall event.
The very agreement itself can be viewed as a momentous political doctrine that shares a common interest between the two clashing parties: The need for open dialogue, showcasing their stances on pressing issues to win over the public’s faith and vote. Nevertheless, this accord was met with a high degree of hostility shortly afterwards which cascaded into a full-blown spat.
The first squabble can be traced back to the selection of moderators for the debates. Both campaigns were allowed to propose individuals to fill this critical role and, unsurprisingly, their choices starkly contradicted. The Trump side opted predominantly for conservative-leaning media personalities and commentators while the Biden campaign chose a more mixed group of journalists, many with substantial experience in handling previous presidential or vice-presidential debates.
The deliberation over the proposed moderators became a fiasco with each side bashing the other’s choices as biased and unworthy. A clear line was drawn in the sand, and the probability of reaching a consensus seemed increasingly unlikely.
Furthermore, respective campaign strategies began to fuel the fire of discontent even more. Trump’s campaign centered around discrediting Biden’s cognitive abilities. They expressed concerns about Biden’s ability to handle the pressure of the debates and even suggested that the Democratic candidate would pull out of them completely.
On the contrary, the Biden campaign maintained a confident stance. They repeatedly affirmed that Biden is ready for the four debates. However, they criticized the Trump side for spreading misinformation and casting doubts on the integrity of the electoral process.
The tension escalated even further when the Trump campaign demanded a third-party inspection of both candidates to rule out the possibility of either wearing an earpiece during the debates, a proposition that the Biden team swiftly dismissed.
In the grand scheme of things, these debates have always been part of the American election traditions. They hold the potential to sway undecided voters by illuminating the candidate’s temperament, acuity, and stance on critical issues.
This unique agreement between Biden and Trump was a landmark decision, aimed at enhancing the engagement with the voters. However, the ensuing combative situations expose the turbulent undercurrent beneath the surface of the American political landscape.
The constant back and forth, accusations of bias, and even the questioning of cognitive abilities signal a dismantling of mutual respect between the two campaigns. As the battle rages on, the American public, precariously perched on the edge of their seats, can only wait in anticipation of what transpires in the upcoming debates and the election as a whole. In the end, regardless of all the in-fighting and disputes, the power to decide the nation’s future lies with the voters.