Why Biden Should Not Debate Trump
The networks want their show, but to give the challenger equal status on a TV stage would be a dire normalization of his attempted coup.
By David FrumApril 16, 2024
Win McNamee / Getty
Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.
Sign up for The Decision, a newsletter featuring our 2024 election coverage.
A consortium of television networks yesterday released a joint statementinviting President Joe Biden and his presumptive opponent, Donald Trump, to debate on their platforms: “There is simply no substitute for the candidates debating with each other, and before the American people, their visions for the future of our nation.”
President Biden’s spokesperson should answer like this: “The Constitution is not debatable. The president does not participate in forums with a person under criminal indictment for his attempt to overthrow the Constitution.”
In their letter of invitation, the networks refer to presidential debates as a “competition of ideas.” But one of the two men they’re inviting turned the last election into a competition of violence: Trump tried to seize the presidency by force in 2021.
David Frum: The ego has crash-landed
If Trump had not occupied the presidency at the time of his attempted coup d’état, he would very likely be already serving a lengthy prison term for his alleged crimes against the 2020 election. Earlier this month, a principal figure in the January 6 attack was sentenced to seven years in prison, the latest of many such serious convictions and sentences. Fortunately for Trump, the U.S. justice system is highly cautious, deferential, and slow when dealing with persons of wealth and importance. Although the followers have been punished, the indicted leader of the plot is unlikely to face trial before Election Day 2024. Until tried and convicted, Trump must be regarded as innocent in the eyes of the law.
But the political system has eyes of its own. No doubt exists about what Trump did, or why, or what his actions meant. Trump lost an election, then incited a violent mob to attack the Capitol. He hoped that the insurrectionists would terrorize, kidnap, or even kill his own vice president in order to stop the ceremony to formalize the victory of Biden and his vice president, Kamala Harris. By disrupting the ceremony, Trump schemed to cast the election’s result to the House of Representatives, where Republican voting strength might proclaim him president in place of the lawful winner. Many people were badly injured by Trump’s violent plan, and some died as a result.
The single most important question on the ballot for 2024 is: Does any of this matter? Is violence by losers to overturn election results an acceptable tool of politics? Is anti-constitutional violence by election losers just another political issue, like inflation or immigration or foreign policy? The television executives apparently believe that, yes, violence is just another issue. “If there is one thing Americans can agree on during this polarized time,” they write, “it is that the stakes of this election are exceptionally high.”
“The stakes are high” would be a fair way to describe an election like that of 1980, when Americans faced a choice between two very different approaches to taxes and spending. It would be a fair way to describe the 2004 election, when Americans were asked to choose between an early exit from the Iraq War and staying the course. But it seems a morally trivializing way to describe an election in which one of the candidates has been criminally indicted for his part in a conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution.
Elliot Ackerman: War-gaming for democracy
Imagine such a presidential debate. “President Biden,” you could hear the moderator say, “we’ll get to Mr. Trump’s alleged violent coup in a moment, but in this segment, we are discussing food prices.”
The role of the television networks here is, unfortunately, not an innocent one. “The stakes of the election are high” is a commencement-address way of phrasing the thought: We are anticipating huge ratings. Trump is box office; everybody knows that—and box office translates into revenues at a time when television is losing them. For TV executives to convince themselves that what is good for their own bottom line is good for the country seems very easy. But good for the country is radically not the case here.
Imagine watching the debate with the sound off—what would you see? Two men, both identified as “president,” standing side by side, receiving equal deference from some of the most famous hosts and anchors on American television. The message: Violence to overthrow an election is not such a big deal. Some Americans disapprove of it; others have different opinions—that’s why we have debates. Coup d’état: tip of the hat? Or wag of the finger?
For Biden to refuse to rub elbows with Trump won’t make Trump go away, of course. The Confederacy did not go away when Abraham Lincoln refused to concede the title of president to Jefferson Davis. That’s not why Lincoln consistently denied Davis that title. Lincoln understood how demoralizing it would be to Union-loyal Americans if he accepted the claim that Davis was a president rather than a rebel and an insurrectionist. Biden should understand how demoralizing it would be to democracy-loyal Americans if he accepted the claim that Trump is more than a January 6 defendant.
Biden has engaged in many high-level television debates over the years: vice-presidential debates in 2008 and 2012; debates for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1987, 2007, and 2019–20. Biden also debated then-President Trump in the fall of 2020. Biden is and was a capable television communicator, as he demonstrated again in his recent State of the Union address. Biden delivered that address with such force and skill that Trump had to imply that Biden must be relying on performance-enhancing drugs. If Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley had won the Republican nomination in 2024, Biden would, and should, have debated them.
But this is different.
David Frum: The ruin that a Trump presidency would mean
Political debates exist to provide voters with relevant information about their electoral choices. The most necessary information that Biden needs to communicate is that Trump is a traitor to the U.S. Constitution. But people will not appreciate something so abnormal if it is habitually characterized as normal.
Many institutions of American life have habits and incentives that lead them to treat Trump’s attempted coup as normal politics. Television and other mass media exhibit worse habits and incentives than most of those institutions. But President Biden does not need to indulge them.
Trump is owed due process in a court of law. He is not owed the courtesies of the office whose oath he betrayed. Biden prefers to keep the temperature of politics low if he can. That’s a good impulse most of the time. But there are occasions when it’s the president’s job to defy the pressure and say no. This debate invitation is one such time.
www.theatlantic.com
Indeed.
The networks want their show, but to give the challenger equal status on a TV stage would be a dire normalization of his attempted coup.
By David FrumApril 16, 2024
Win McNamee / Getty
Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.
Sign up for The Decision, a newsletter featuring our 2024 election coverage.
A consortium of television networks yesterday released a joint statementinviting President Joe Biden and his presumptive opponent, Donald Trump, to debate on their platforms: “There is simply no substitute for the candidates debating with each other, and before the American people, their visions for the future of our nation.”
President Biden’s spokesperson should answer like this: “The Constitution is not debatable. The president does not participate in forums with a person under criminal indictment for his attempt to overthrow the Constitution.”
In their letter of invitation, the networks refer to presidential debates as a “competition of ideas.” But one of the two men they’re inviting turned the last election into a competition of violence: Trump tried to seize the presidency by force in 2021.
David Frum: The ego has crash-landed
If Trump had not occupied the presidency at the time of his attempted coup d’état, he would very likely be already serving a lengthy prison term for his alleged crimes against the 2020 election. Earlier this month, a principal figure in the January 6 attack was sentenced to seven years in prison, the latest of many such serious convictions and sentences. Fortunately for Trump, the U.S. justice system is highly cautious, deferential, and slow when dealing with persons of wealth and importance. Although the followers have been punished, the indicted leader of the plot is unlikely to face trial before Election Day 2024. Until tried and convicted, Trump must be regarded as innocent in the eyes of the law.
But the political system has eyes of its own. No doubt exists about what Trump did, or why, or what his actions meant. Trump lost an election, then incited a violent mob to attack the Capitol. He hoped that the insurrectionists would terrorize, kidnap, or even kill his own vice president in order to stop the ceremony to formalize the victory of Biden and his vice president, Kamala Harris. By disrupting the ceremony, Trump schemed to cast the election’s result to the House of Representatives, where Republican voting strength might proclaim him president in place of the lawful winner. Many people were badly injured by Trump’s violent plan, and some died as a result.
The single most important question on the ballot for 2024 is: Does any of this matter? Is violence by losers to overturn election results an acceptable tool of politics? Is anti-constitutional violence by election losers just another political issue, like inflation or immigration or foreign policy? The television executives apparently believe that, yes, violence is just another issue. “If there is one thing Americans can agree on during this polarized time,” they write, “it is that the stakes of this election are exceptionally high.”
“The stakes are high” would be a fair way to describe an election like that of 1980, when Americans faced a choice between two very different approaches to taxes and spending. It would be a fair way to describe the 2004 election, when Americans were asked to choose between an early exit from the Iraq War and staying the course. But it seems a morally trivializing way to describe an election in which one of the candidates has been criminally indicted for his part in a conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution.
Elliot Ackerman: War-gaming for democracy
Imagine such a presidential debate. “President Biden,” you could hear the moderator say, “we’ll get to Mr. Trump’s alleged violent coup in a moment, but in this segment, we are discussing food prices.”
The role of the television networks here is, unfortunately, not an innocent one. “The stakes of the election are high” is a commencement-address way of phrasing the thought: We are anticipating huge ratings. Trump is box office; everybody knows that—and box office translates into revenues at a time when television is losing them. For TV executives to convince themselves that what is good for their own bottom line is good for the country seems very easy. But good for the country is radically not the case here.
Imagine watching the debate with the sound off—what would you see? Two men, both identified as “president,” standing side by side, receiving equal deference from some of the most famous hosts and anchors on American television. The message: Violence to overthrow an election is not such a big deal. Some Americans disapprove of it; others have different opinions—that’s why we have debates. Coup d’état: tip of the hat? Or wag of the finger?
For Biden to refuse to rub elbows with Trump won’t make Trump go away, of course. The Confederacy did not go away when Abraham Lincoln refused to concede the title of president to Jefferson Davis. That’s not why Lincoln consistently denied Davis that title. Lincoln understood how demoralizing it would be to Union-loyal Americans if he accepted the claim that Davis was a president rather than a rebel and an insurrectionist. Biden should understand how demoralizing it would be to democracy-loyal Americans if he accepted the claim that Trump is more than a January 6 defendant.
Biden has engaged in many high-level television debates over the years: vice-presidential debates in 2008 and 2012; debates for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1987, 2007, and 2019–20. Biden also debated then-President Trump in the fall of 2020. Biden is and was a capable television communicator, as he demonstrated again in his recent State of the Union address. Biden delivered that address with such force and skill that Trump had to imply that Biden must be relying on performance-enhancing drugs. If Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley had won the Republican nomination in 2024, Biden would, and should, have debated them.
But this is different.
David Frum: The ruin that a Trump presidency would mean
Political debates exist to provide voters with relevant information about their electoral choices. The most necessary information that Biden needs to communicate is that Trump is a traitor to the U.S. Constitution. But people will not appreciate something so abnormal if it is habitually characterized as normal.
Many institutions of American life have habits and incentives that lead them to treat Trump’s attempted coup as normal politics. Television and other mass media exhibit worse habits and incentives than most of those institutions. But President Biden does not need to indulge them.
Trump is owed due process in a court of law. He is not owed the courtesies of the office whose oath he betrayed. Biden prefers to keep the temperature of politics low if he can. That’s a good impulse most of the time. But there are occasions when it’s the president’s job to defy the pressure and say no. This debate invitation is one such time.
Why Biden Should Not Debate Trump
The networks want their show, but to give the challenger equal status on a TV stage would be a dire normalization of his attempted coup.
www.theatlantic.com
Indeed.
