It unfolded as it did because Trump wouldn’t
comply with the rules. He constantly interrupted Biden and engaged in verbal
battles with Wallace. Trump behaved that way
so consistently, he must have gone
in with a strategy of provoking Biden into a temper tantrum or making him
appear mentally unstable. For the most part, Biden kept his cool and, under
trying circumstances, demonstrated command of his faculties.
The rules had been worked out between
the parties, with each candidate given two minutes of uninterrupted time for
responses to
questions from Wallace on six broad topics, followed by a discussion
period. Instead of adhering to that, from the beginning Trump talked over
Biden’s answers and sparred with Wallace about the nature of questions and his
efforts to enforce the rules. At the end, many who watched found themselves
exhausted and embarrassed. One of our daughters sent a text saying that after
45 minutes she’d broken into the wine and “tapped out.” Veteran Democratic strategist James
Carville said, “I was being paid to watch and I had a hard time getting through
this.”
A Few Memorable Moments
Presidential debates often become
known for a memorable line or a gaffe by one candidate. Who can forget Gerald
Ford in 1976 claiming
the old Soviet Union didn’t dominate Poland? Or Ronald Reagan in 1980, telling Jimmy
Carter, “There you go again?”
Then there was George
H.W. Bush looking at his watch in
1992, suggesting his impatience with
being on stage with Bill
Clinton and H.
Ross Perot.No such moment occurred
in this debate. The closest anyone came was when Biden said about Trump’s
handling of the pandemic, “It is what it is because you are who you are.” But
there were things people will remember.
First, Trump wouldn’t, when given a direct opportunity,
condemn white supremacy. Instead, he urged that a right-wing group known as the
Proud Boys, “stand back
and
stand by,” an ominous warning seemingly inviting preparations for future mayhem.
Trump’s pass on condemning white supremacy earned him widespread condemnation
in the media and from anti-hate groups.
Second, Trump wouldn’t recognize the
military service of Biden’s late son, Beau.When Biden told Trump his son wasn’t a “loser” or a “sucker” as Trump
reportedly described fallen
American soldiers,
Trump attacked Biden’s other son, Hunter, for alleged improprieties in
connection with business activities in Ukraine, allegations that have proved
unfounded despite several investigations.
Finally, Trump demonstrated an astounding lack of respect for
American traditions and empathy for people lost in the pandemic. Biden showed
the opposite on both counts.
Impact on the Race?
Beforehand, we laid out objectives each candidate might have,
with the idea we’d look for how each did or didn’t achieve them. We quickly realized
we couldn’t do that kind of analysis. Trump’s behavior defied a rational
accounting of objectives setversus objectives achieved. Trump took the role of Disrupter-in-Chief and the
debate resembled a wrestling match with a pig in a mud puddle.
Dramatist George
Bernard Shaw once warned about the danger of getting into such a contest.
“You get dirty,” he said. “Besides the
pig likes it.” Biden did his best, succumbing
only a few times to thefrustration. He had good moments when he faced
the camera and spoke directly to the American people about race, the pandemic, their
economic concerns, and climate change.
The entire ugly affair was so far off
the norm of presidential debates there’s no framework – historical or otherwise
– for evaluating it. Biden
won a CNN “instant poll” of
debate watchers, 60-28, but that wasn’t a sample of the electorate in general. Few
pundits believed Trump’s bullying won him support anywhere except with members
of his hard-core base. It will take several days before new polling tells us
what the country as a whole thought.
Biden reportedly raised a record
amount of money from on-line donations the night of the
debate, meaning his spending
advantage should continue as the campaign moves into its final days. That fact made
it more likely Biden can keep the advantage he began the debate with, a
seven-to-eight-point edge in the polling averages published by websites like FiveThirtyEight.com and Real
Clear Politics. That doesn’t address the damage the spectacle did to
American democracy and our image in the world.
After the Cleveland fiasco, cries
rang out for calling off the remaining debates. That
probably won’t happen, but
the possibility of a repeat of the first debate left a bad taste in many
mouths.
Killing microphones when it’s not a
candidate’s
turn to speak was suggested for the remaining debates. Everyone knew
Trump wouldn’t agree to that, since disrupting things is his objective. But that
suggestion made contemplating more debates palatable.
Donald Trump began fighting with the news media as a 2016 candidate. At rallies, he leveled the charge “fake news” at
mainstream media organizations and reporters who challenged his actions or statements. That has continued since he took office. Now, in addition to attacking the press generally, Trump seems to have saved his most vitriolic and disturbing attacks for women reporters and minority women reporters.
Trump’s behavior threatens American democracy, demeans his office, and brings
closer the fears of encroaching fascism former State SecretaryMadeleine Albright cautioned us about in her 2018 book Fascism: A Warning. The president’s treatment of the press underscores the need for removing him from office five months from now.
Special Disdain for Women
Though Trump does berate male reporters from time to time, recently he’s saved special invective for female journalists.
During news conferences and coronavirus task force briefings, Trump has said very unpleasant things to women attending and working at those meetings. They include:
·Calling one female CBS correspondent “fake” and “disgraceful.”
·Telling CNN’s Abby Phillips, “You ask a lot of stupid questions.”
·Saying to another female CNN reporter that, “You’ve had enough” when the woman tried asking a question.
·Once telling ABC’s Cecilia Vega, “I know you’re not thinking. You never do.”
Trump as a “misogynistic jerk.” She added that he treats women reporters differently than men and in a way that’s “horrible.”
Saving Real Vitriol for Minority Women
Soon after becoming president, Trump began insulting female reporters of color. He had
an early run-in with April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks, asking her if she could arrange a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus. She wrote a book, Under Fire: Reporting from the Front Lines of the Trump White House, in which she accused him of discriminating against minority journalists.
Trump later started a feud with Yamiche Alcindor, a black woman who once worked as
a reporter for The New York Times but now appears on the PBS News Hour and serves as an MSNBC contributor. Trump has asked her to be “nice” and not “threatening.” On several occasions he wouldn’t answer questions from her that seemed no more hostile than questions white male reporters ask.
Trump berating reporter Yamiche Alcindor
Most recently, Trump seemingly profiled a CBS reporter of Asian heritage, Weijia Jiang, telling her she should “ask China” a question about hisearly downplaying of the corona-
virus. She called him on that, asking why he directed such a statement at her. He later said she should “keep her voice down.”
The Ryan, Alcindor, and Jiang incidents suggest Trump believes he can bully minority
women reporters at will. Trump’s attacks on women journalists, including minority women, no doubt helped encourage a recent report by the Committee to Protect Journalists that described Trump’s war on the press as “dangerously under[mining] truth and consensus in a deeply divided country.”
Trump goes after reporters of all stripes who don’t work for Fox News. He calls them names, insults their intelligence, and denigrates the organizations for which they
work. Recently, for example, he took on The Washington Post White House Bureau Chief Phillip Rucker, co-author of A Very Stable Genius, a book highly critical of Trump’s actions as president.
Secretary Albright wrote “The advantage of a free press is diminished when anyone can claim to be an objective journalist, then disseminate narratives conjured out of thin air to make others believe rubbish.” (p. 114). We would add that destroying the credibility of the free press represents the first step in that process. Clearly, Trump wishes to bestow credibility on the part of the press that supports his conduct and attack the part that dares criticize him.
attacks on the press, particularly by targeting women and minority journalists, require that we turn to Secretary Albright once more. On the press issue, she asked, “If the president of the United States says the press always lies, how can Vladimir Putin be faulted for making the same claim?” (p.5). Later, she noted how “contagious” anti-press behavior becomes. Not long after Trump excluded prominent reporters from his news conferences, other governments began taking actions against reporters who wrote stories those governments didn’t like and called them “fake news.” (pp. 212-13)
We can’t stress enough how strongly we believe Trump’s attacks on the press threaten American democracy as much or more than other actions he’s taken. The fact he picks on and insults women, especially women of color, just makes it worse. We can’t let our outrage wane though his persistent, destructive behavior continues unabated. A “new “normal” is too dangerous.
We’re reminded of the wisdom in Thomas Jefferson’s 1787 observation that, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
We’ve often pointed out the many reasons the American people must remove Trump and preserve the democracy we’ve painstakingly built over almost 250 years. Trump’s press interaction, especially with women reporters, ranks right at the top.
Biden confronted an Iowa voter,
telling him, “You’re
a damn liar, man.” The incident generated heat on cable news and the
political websites and an intense disagreement among the three of us. We
concluded airing our disagreement illuminates our differing world views on
politics in general and on how Democrats best respond in the face of President
Trump’s bare-knuckled, take-no-prisoners style.
At a town
hall meeting, a voter claimed Biden “sent” his son, Hunter,
to Ukraine
for service on the board of a gas company, an industry the man said Hunter
Biden knew nothing about, so hecould improperly influence U.S. – Ukrainian
policy. The man also claimed Biden was “too old” to run for President.
The
former vice president reminded him no evidence exists Hunter Biden improperly
engaged in influence peddling. Biden also challenged the man to a pushups
contest as a fitness check.
Woodson and Henry think Biden overreacted, while Rob offers a full-throated defense of the former vice
president:
Woodson:
Calm in the Face of Insult Signals Strength, not Weakness
I want a candidate who won’t
wilt under President Trump’s inevitable personal attacks. But I oppose the idea
the challenger should respond in kind. I also oppose the idea that primary
candidates should hone their skills on primary voters.
The
Iowa voter questioned Hunter Biden’s involvement with the Ukrainian company Burisma. He was
entitled to a thoughtful answer. When did we start holding voters to standards
of eloquence in political speech? Biden’s response was disappointing when he
called the voter a “damn liar” and challenged him to a pushups contest. Both
responses were beneath the dignity of the office of President of the United
States. It was bullying. Will Biden call Trump a “damn liar” when he raises
questions about Burisma or challenge Trump to a pushups contest should he
question Biden’s physical fitness? Bullying is bullying, whether done by Trump,
Biden, Republican, or Democrat.
We
need a return to the quiet strength Barack
Obama displayed while President. When Mitch
McConnell declared, soon after Obama’s election, that the number one
objective for Republicans was making Obama a one-term president; when
repeatedly accused
of not being a U.S. citizen; when during a joint address to Congress South
Carolina Representative
Joe Wilson shouted, “You lie,” Obama remained calm. That’s the kind of
quiet strength we need in a President, not more bombast. If Biden wants to be President,
he should take lessons from the man under whom he served for eight years and
elevate the discourse.
Henry:
A Preference for Civility
Much of the initial commentary
about
Biden calls man "damn liar" in Iowa
what happened in Iowa centered
on how it might affect voter behavior. Some thought it might help Biden and
others saw it hurting him. I’m possibly the worst person on earth at making a
political calculus. I own an awful impact prediction record. My reaction to
Biden, therefore, rests not on potential voter impact, but on my views about
how I should respond to other human beings.
I
prefer a reasoned, respectful, logical response in almost any human endeavor. I
believe we may be called on to conduct ourselves in accordance with
our values.
I can’t, at this point, think of important values Biden’s response reflects. I
realize, ironically enough, Biden may have responded in a way that reflects
values I don’t now recognize. My view may only spring from how I see personal
conduct obligations.
Though I make no predictions
about short term voter reaction, in the long run, I believe civility, calm,
logic, and empathy win.
Rob: “Damn Right”
I
appreciate and respect the desire of my esteemed colleagues for civil
discourse in political dialogue, but they
remind me of the old adage about the
folly of bringing a knife to a gunfight. I always want peace, but I don’t want
it at any price. I fear their approach offers just that in the age of Trump.
Joe
Biden’s response to the Iowa voter’s misinformed charges warmed my heart. It said that if Biden
wins the
Democratic nomination, stands on the debate stage with Trump, and absorbs
his insults, he’ll give as much as he gets. Joe Biden defended his son and his
own integrity in straightforward terms leaving no doubt about the strength of
his convictions or his determination to stand up for his own interests and the
people he represents. If Biden wins the Democratic nomination, he’ll represent
me as someone who desperately wants Trump gone so I can reclaim my country from
lawlessness and insanity.
Too often Democrats, in seeking
“reasoned discourse,” come off as cowards or wimps in the face of brutal, unfair
attacks from Republican hate mongers and disinformation specialists. Joe Biden
showed me he won’t fit in that category if he wins the nomination. If he was a
little impolitic, if he could have been more “civil,” more “reasoned,” I
forgive that as the price of letting Trump and his henchmen know unilateral
disarmament won’t happen in this campaign.
