Once again displaying his fondness for spectacles, ex-President Donald Trump has confirmed his attendance at a forthcoming debate. Set to take place next month, this debate in Philadelphia notably features Vice President Kamala Harris. This news was brought to light on Trump’s Truth Social platform, where he conveyed that an agreement around the rules had finally been reached. However, given his track record, one must question the ‘agreement’ and the gimmicks that may likely unfold.
Keen observers may remember the previous CNN debate as the point where Trump made some controversial remarks. To model the upcoming ABC debate on those rules seems like an unusual choice. The ex-President, seemingly dismissive of the possible repercussions, insists that the said agreement comprises some familiar stipulations, which intriguingly involves muted microphones – welcome to the era of silent debates!
According to Trump’s statement, ‘The format will involve standing up without the aid of written material, or ‘cheat sheets.’ Verbal merit alone will decide the victor. ABC has promised ‘fair and equitable’ proceedings, preventing advance knowledge of questions.’ Indeed, it’s rich hearing ‘fair and equitable’ from a man who spent a good part of his presidency undermining democratic processes and norms.
Furthermore, Donald Trump left room for a potential standoff with Fox News. Is Harris’s refusal to participate in their scheduled September 4 debate causing Trump to have second thoughts? Or is he simply hedging his bets? With Trump’s unpredictable nature, it is tough to discern his real intentions.
The former president is also contemplating a third debate with NBC News. However, Trump’s dismissal of NBC as ‘fake news’ and his claim that the network is still awaiting approval from ‘the radical left,’ showcases his unwavering stance against mainstream media he doesn’t agree with rather than promoting fair dialogue and discourse.
The agreed rules for this much-anticipated spectacle seem to be a rehash of the CNN debate of June 27. This event had featured Trump squaring off against President Joe Biden and had the unique feature of muted microphones when the rival spoke – one would think debates are for airing views, not stifling them.
In a turn of inexplicable irony, the debaters will get a writing pad, a pen, and water. All these in a debate where live microphones are disliked and note-taking is deemphasized. It’s quite befuddling how the Harris campaign, known for its strong, articulate viewpoints, seems to have accepted these farcical conditions.
In stark contrast to Trump’s claim of unity among the candidates about microphone muting, the Harris team has categorically denied agreeing to such arrangements. According to them, ‘Both candidates have displayed a marked preference for live mics to enable robust and valuable exchanges. However, it seems Trump is allowing his team to dictate terms. Disappointing!’ This throws light on the internal conflict within the Trump team and their inability to maintain a consistent public stance.
The debate schedule previously featured a second and final meeting between Trump and Biden on September 10. Yet, Biden’s withdrawal from the race post a dismal show in the first debate, dealing a blow to this plan, seems to have been overlooked in Trump’s narrative.
Earlier this month, Trump had proclaimed his intentions to ‘make peace’ with ABC, the debate host. This declaration is intriguing given the ex-president’s ongoing legal tussle with ABC on charges of defamation. However, past conflicts seem to have done little to deter Trump, who seldom sways from his chosen path, legal implications notwithstanding.
In conclusion, Trump’s assertions and the proposed debate rules expose the charade that this event has the potential to become. Mandating silence when others speak, barring notes, and enforcing standing postures are just a few of the eccentricities that the public should brace themselves for.
With Trump’s volatile history with the media and his generally inconsistent behaviors, chances are the rules for this debate were handpicked by him to deflect potential criticism and project him in a favorable light.
Still, it becomes vital to question the integrity of an event where such aberrant conditions are the norm. The endeavor to conduct a ‘fair and equitable’ debate seems a tad hollow when transparency is being grossly undermined by the very individual who should be upholding it.
Watching Trump and Harris engage in verbal battles under some unusual and suspect debate rules promises to be a spectacle. As we count down to the event, it is imperative, as closely observing citizens, to remember the importance of fairness and equitability in political discourse, even though their definitions seem to be conveniently twisted for the occasion.
So, as we inch closer to witnessing Trump’s antics in the Philadelphia Debate, we ought to remind ourselves: debates should be platforms for sharing ideas, not personal playgrounds for individuals seeking to twist norms and conventions to fit their narrative.