With so much of the 2020 election season (primaries, selection of running mate, conventions) in the rear-view mirror, next up are the debates.
In case you were wondering what to do with your upcoming Tuesday nights, the first presidential debate is September 29; the other two are October 15 and 22. Mike Pence and Kamala Harris will square off on October 7. All are scheduled for 90 minutes, starting at 9 PM ET. (The end of daylight savings, with clocks “falling back”, is not until November 1.)
Other than Donald Trump in 2016, there has never been a candidate for president remotely like Donald Trump. Preparing to debate him presents unique, bizarre challenges. A standard opening statement just won’t do, for instance.
Here, then, is an approach Joe Biden might take with his opening statement next Tuesday night:
Good evening
“Good evening. I would prefer to use this time to make a traditional opening statement for a presidential debate. For reasons I believe are obvious, however, I need to explain what my approach to all the debates will be – as to both content and tone – and why.
After nearly four years of this presidency, we all know what to expect from Donald Trump in a debate: name-calling, bluster, bullying, coarseness, insults, rudeness, and above all a blizzard of dishonesty.
Content
There will be every kind of dishonesty: denial of obvious truth, fabrication, projection, misrepresentation, distortion of context, and outright lies. Gross exaggeration is as close to the truth as Donald Trump ever seems to get.
I speak of Donald Trump’s dishonesty from personal experience; nearly everything said about me and my positions in his campaign ads, for example, has been false.
Spending too much precious time in these debates reacting to an avalanche of lies would be a disservice. You deserve to know how I plan to serve as President. (And note: there is a plan. We actually have a platform. Not everyone is going to agree with every word of it, but that’s OK.)
You deserve to have the issues discussed on the merits; I will do that.
Therefore, I have directed that several policy experts on my campaign staff devote their time during and immediately following the debates to fact-checking. To keep the debates moving as smoothly as possible, I will generally just point out falsehoods without dwelling on their details. Within 48 hours of the conclusion to each debate, however, we will issue an explanation of what was false, how it was false, and why it matters.
I reserve the right, of course, to address a particular falsehood in some depth. This might be where the discussion requires immediate correction and failure to do so would leave a misimpression. On the other hand, there may be so many falsehoods that I won’t have time even to mention them all.
If that happens, my silence on a given falsehood will not mean acquiescence.
Meanwhile, if I get a fact wrong, it will be inadvertent; it will be corrected, with apologies, as soon as possible.
Tone
As to the tone of the debate – the name-calling, the belligerence, the coarseness, the bullying he will undoubtedly attempt – I will do my level best not to be drawn in by Donald Trump’s tactics, or to sink to his level. I will not take the bait; then we will see what else he has to offer.
For the rest of these debates, I hope there is no need to address this topic again.
One (More Standard) Opening Statement Point
In the few moments left for this opening, here’s a brief overview of the choice involved in this election. The differences between Donald Trump and me couldn’t be more numerous or profound. For now, please note one important distinction.
In attacking our nation’s crises and challenges as President, I will: (1) surround myself with the best available experts; (2) direct them to tell me the truth, rather than what I wish were true; (3) listen to the experts; and then (4) do my very best for the country and all its people.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, will do what he always does – his very best for the benefit of Donald Trump – for as long as we let him. There’s no need for a President to bother with expertise, facts, careful deliberation, skillful implementation, or diplomacy when he cares nothing for anyone or anything but himself.
Please never lose sight of this basic, overriding distinction as we get into questions of public policy, character, and fitness for the office of President.
Thank you.”
This approach probably will not prevent the train-wreck the debates promise to be, but it might reduce the force of impact. At this point, any step lessening the ongoing damage to our democracy is worth taking.
Ken Bossong
© 2020 Kenneth J. Bossong