Why Modern Presidential 'Debates' Have Lost All Relevance

Article submitted by Christopher G. Adamo.

As the Nation lurches into the 2024 Presidential Primary campaign season, many Americans with a sense of our heritage will reflexively hearken back to the famed "Lincoln Douglas" debates of the late 1850s as reason to continue the ritual this year. An open debate forum just seems like the "right thing to do." Yet an intellectually honest appraisal of the debates of recent decades starkly proves exactly the opposite.

Understanding this requires a deeper examination of both those original 1858 debates between U.S. Senate candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, compared with all of the ways in which so-called "debates" have degenerated and been perverted since. Eventually, it becomes obvious that the sincere, worthy intentions of Lincoln and Douglas would hardly be served by the modern venue. Saddest of all, this is entirely by design.

With America teetering on the brink of Civil War, Lincoln and Douglas believed that the interests of the public would be best served by an honest and open exchange of ideas. Highlighting their contrasting viewpoints, an informed citizenry could then make the best choice as to who to put into office. Of course, both candidates had to possess sufficient integrity to present an honest case before the voting "jury." With little or no other means of informing the public, such a venue proved invaluable, and was eventually adopted as standard fare for Presidential campaigns.

Much has changed since then. With the advent of widespread dissemination of the news, first through the press and then via radio and eventually television, a much greater portion of the American electorate had access to information on aspiring candidates. The inevitable proliferation of campaign ads throughout mass media ensured that candidates could get their messages out to the public. Yet the "debates" continued. Meanwhile, something else occurred in society that thoroughly upended any perceived benefits.

Beginning in the immediate aftermath of World War II, American media began to drift left, embracing one precept of Marxist/Globalist ideology after another. This became increasingly evident in every aspect of network broadcasting, from glib "one liners" of primetime sitcoms to severely slanted presentations of current events on the nightly "news." By 1960, the television industry had sufficiently learned how to use visual cues to shift favor onto its desired candidates, and away from those it opposed.

It is no coincidence that although radio audiences, polled after Nixon and Kennedy debated, insisted Nixon had won, those viewing the event on television concluded exactly the opposite. Lighting and camera angles that portrayed Nixon as "shadowy," in contrast to Kennedy, clearly had an impact. Furthermore, Nixon was prone to sweating when under pressure. So this was subtly but consistently highlighted for television audiences, who responded accordingly, even if not consciously.

Since that time, the entire so-called "debate" format degenerated to where current installments are an embarrassing caricature of the time-honored original. Every absurdity that leftists, who dominate major media, can incorporate into the events become predictable and thoroughly tedious. Again, this is absolutely intentional. Given the ugly reality of the leftist agenda, the last thing its minions want is a properly informed public. So every possible effort is made to change minds by presenting empty leftist promises of collectivist utopia, while suppressing any truth from Conservatives.

For starters, no real debate occurs. A "moderator" picks and chooses which questions to ask of which candidates, and is quick to interfere and stonewall as he/she sees fit. Often, during the Republican Primary season, candidates are posed a "Yes/No" group question, requiring them to respond with a show of hands. Again, this has nothing to do with ensuring an informed public, but rather is a means of belittling the candidates who, as potential leaders of the Free World are compelled to defer to the moderator as a pupil might do for a school teacher.

Similarly, too much is made of such absurdities as one candidate verbally "slamming" another, or who has the best "one liners," as if such qualities in any way reflect the demands of running a country or making policy with world leaders on matters of international consequence. Such inanity begs the question of whether networks might seek to add a "presidential swimsuit competition" to upcoming "debates."

Occasions on which the "moderator" blatantly takes sides (always against the more Conservative candidate and in favor of the leftist) have drastically increased in recent years. During the Obama/Romney debate of 2012 (and not suggesting that Romney, the "Republican" candidate was in any way "Conservative"), Romney was shocked as a point he made was directly challenged by "moderator" Candy Crowley, who had a printed publication mysteriously on hand, by which she refuted him. Neither Obama nor any thoroughly disingenuous Democrat has ever faced similar treatment.

Of course all of this escalated in the 2016 candidacy of President Trump, who often found himself attempting to make a counterpoint to some leftist platitude from Hillary, while being incessantly interrupted by the "moderator." Clearly, any notion of informing the public was totally supplanted by the intent of the Deep State and their Fake News lackeys to promote the leftist/Democrat narrative, while thoroughly suppressing anything from the Right.

Things got far worse in 2020. By then the "debates" had descended into a truly pathetic circus, owing to Joe Biden's obvious inability to understand a direct question or give anything resembling a coherent response. It was clear on every occasion that the entire effort of the leftists in charge was first to continually cover for Biden, and then to prevent President Trump from actually making his case. And all of this brings up a fundamental difference between left and right, that will ultimately render any real debate between them an impossibility.

Leftist ideology was founded entirely on the lies of Marx. Hence the leftist agenda can only be advanced through lies. So the greatest threat to it is any truthful analysis and discussion of who leftists are, and what they actually intend for America. Meanwhile, those on the right can only benefit from honest discourse. It follows that every leftist with any ability to influence the situation will always seek to mock and suppress the truth, in order to clear the field for the most efficient propagation of the approved lies.

Another vaunted pillar of "Politics as usual" bites the dust! America owes a huge debt of thanks to President Trump for finally showing that a candidate can make his case without having to genuflect at the leftist altar of Fake News, or the phony debate circus. This despite all the feigned outrage and indignation from leftist Democrats and Establishment Republicans, as if he is forsaking some sacred Constitutional obligation. He can reach out to the American people and trust their ability to see through the lies and manipulations, choosing for their own good, and for the good of the Country.

Bio

Christopher G. Adamo is a lifelong conservative from the American Heartland. He has been involved in grassroots and state-level politics for many years, seeking to restore and uphold the Judeo-Christian principles on which our Nation was founded. His book, "Rules for Defeating Radicals," is the "Go To" guide for effectively confronting and overcoming the dirty tricks of the political left. It is available at Amazon.