-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
This midterm season, the role of the debate has changed
Fall means crunching2 leaves, college football, pumpkin3 spice and sweater weather. In election years, it's always meant something else as well — the arrival of debate season.
This year, though, things are a little different. It was once a given that candidates — especially those seeking statewide office in a midterm election year — would face off with their main opponent for three or more one-on-one debates, so voters could see them side by side and hear them answer questions and explain their positions on the issues.
In 2022, many candidates are skipping the debate ritual all together. Even in places where there are debates, expect fewer. In states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona and North Carolina, candidates for the U.S. Senate will meet just once in a debate. In some places — like Nevada and Missouri — it appears likely there will be no debates between major party Senate nominees5.
The idea that candidates for office will engage in public debate is deeply ingrained in this country's history. In 1858, a Senate hopeful named Abraham Lincoln participated in a series of legendary6 debates with incumbent7 Sen. Stephen A. Douglas.
In the process, the reputations of both men were enhanced. While Douglas ultimately won that election, Lincoln was elected president two years later.
The modern debate era began in 1960 when Sen. John F. Kennedy (D-Mass.) squared off against Vice8 President Richard M. Nixon. This time television cameras were present. The national broadcast of the series of debates became must-see TV.
Two other longstanding traditions were born out of the Kennedy-Nixon debates: First, there was the use of journalists as moderators and questioners for the event. Second, looks started to matter.
With the introduction of television, public perception was based as much on how the candidates looked as it was on what they said. Kennedy wore make-up and appeared much more cool and collected, while the camera caught Nixon wiping sweat from his lip and brow and appearing in need of a shave.
Famously, a majority of Americans who only listened to the debate on radio rated Nixon as having won. Those who watched on television rated Kennedy much higher. Kennedy went on to win the presidential election that year.
Debate stumbles can have major costs for candidates
In the decades to follow, the idea took hold that candidates for both federal and statewide offices were expected to debate.
To not do so would hurt a campaign. Now though, as with so much in campaigns and elections, even that long held truism is being tested.
"American politics has changed," said political analyst9 and veteran Iowa-based journalist David Yepsen. "Campaigns have changed. And with that, the role of debates has changed."
Yepsen, who has also served as a debate moderator on the presidential level and for local offices, explained these days campaigns often see more risk than reward in debating.
"For for many candidates, there's just no upside to this and it's not worth the risk of making a mistake," he says, "a mistake that can then be magnified and amplified10 for days (or longer) on social media."
Yepsen added, "It just discourages donors11." This can have major literal and figurative costs. Donors are a campaign's lifeblood.
Examples of embarrassing debate missteps abound12. Sometimes it's just a momentary13 brain-freeze, like when 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry simply tried to list the three cabinet departments he'd eliminate if elected.
He mentioned the Department of Education, then the Commerce Department, but then he blanked. He could not recall the third department on his list, awkwardly hemming14 and hawing before giving up and softly muttering, "oops."
Perry's campaign never recovered, and his viral moment lives on, on the internet as one of many cautionary tales to future campaigns.
Or there was the time in 2008, when Sen. Barack Obama was seen as rude — even churlish — when he said to his opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton, "You're likeable enough Hillary."
It is moments like these that campaigns fear. With the advent15 of Twitter, TikTok, texting and other instantaneous means of spreading news, such a moment can be even more damaging than ever, making many candidates more wary16 of taking the debate stage in the first place.
Deeply divided politics make debates less popular for politicians
Another factor in the shrinking number of debates is that you can no longer assume your opponent will abide17 by the rules. As a candidate, Donald Trump18 took pride in flouting19 the rules on the debate stage, challenging moderators and ignoring traditional debate decorum.
That was chiefly on display in 2020 during the first presidential debate when President Trump constantly interrupted his challenger Joe Biden. Exasperated20, Biden finally said to Trump, "Will you shut up, man?"
It is not just on display on the national stage. This year, at a primary debate for the GOP nomination21 for the U.S. Senate in March, Senate candidates Josh Mandel and Mike Gibbons got into an argument. They faced off at the front of the riser, shouting at each other, literally22 bumping chests and using obscenities until the moderator broke it up.
That is what can happen when candidates actually do take the stage, but more and more, debates are getting derailed amid pre-debate arguments over the terms.
Experienced debate moderator David Yepsen said that provides an excuse by allowing a campaign to claim the other side was simply being unreasonable23 about the rules and conditions.
Yepsen calls it the debate equivalent of running out the clock, freeing up the campaigns to reach their base directly through other means: "It's a safer political move to do your campaign with paid media and social media and door knocking."
John Selleck, a Republican strategist in Michigan, said the fact that mainstream24 media outlets25 are no longer as dominant26 as they once were lessens27 the shame that used to be a concern if a candidate skipped a debate.
According to Selleck, "campaigns can directly target the voters they want all day, every day, due to technological28 advances and that's all that matters to them."
Hyper-partisanship and animosity limit appeal of debates
In addition to the shorter than usual tally29 of Senate debates, the same thing is playing out in races for governor across the country as well.
It looks like there will not be a gubernatorial debate in Arizona, where Democrat30 Katie Hobbs refuses to debate 2020 election denier and Trump endorsed31 GOP nominee4 Kari Lake.
Lake, meanwhile, is eager to debate and has countered by calling Hobbs spineless. Hobbs has said she does not want to provide a big, statewide platform for an opponent who will spread lies and conspiracy32 theories.
Democratic strategist Tara McGowan — who now runs a left leaning digital news site — thinks Hobbs is making a mistake. According to McGowan, it's important to debate even when your opponent has extreme positions.
"We have to give the American people more credit," McGowan said, "They can see through lies, especially if they are seeing both sides, if they are watching both candidates respond to the same questions and see that clear contrast."
It is also true that some Republicans are not interested in a traditional debate moderated by journalists from mainstream media outlets.
In Pennsylvania, GOP gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano — also an election denier endorsed by Trump — has blocked news organizations from attending his campaign events. GOP strategist John Selleck explained this is how many campaigns operate now, "especially Trump-America First campaigns, are exhibiting no interest in talking to the media or anyone outside their base."
Still, debates occupy a special place in the electoral process. David Dix — a Philadelphia based consultant33 who works with Republicans and Democrats34 — said it not all about tradition. Debates are ultimately about helping35 voters make a choice.
"Democracy requires an exchange of ideas in a public forum36 that citizens can digest and then respond to," Dix argued.
He added there is a cold reality in politics today: while democracy needs debates, campaigns do not. Campaigns, he explained, are all about collecting data — through social media and other means — that does more for targeting their likely voters than a debate can.
"Algorithmic data is much more important than trying to win or lose a 90 minute debate. That's the direction campaigns are going in this day. And I don't see it coming back or pivoting," Dix said.
1 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 crunching | |
v.嘎吱嘎吱地咬嚼( crunch的现在分词 );嘎吱作响;(快速大量地)处理信息;数字捣弄 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 pumpkin | |
n.南瓜 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 nominee | |
n.被提名者;被任命者;被推荐者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 nominees | |
n.被提名者,被任命者( nominee的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 legendary | |
adj.传奇(中)的,闻名遐迩的;n.传奇(文学) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 incumbent | |
adj.成为责任的,有义务的;现任的,在职的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 vice | |
n.坏事;恶习;[pl.]台钳,老虎钳;adj.副的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 analyst | |
n.分析家,化验员;心理分析学家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 amplified | |
放大,扩大( amplify的过去式和过去分词 ); 增强; 详述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 donors | |
n.捐赠者( donor的名词复数 );献血者;捐血者;器官捐献者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 abound | |
vi.大量存在;(in,with)充满,富于 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 momentary | |
adj.片刻的,瞬息的;短暂的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 hemming | |
卷边 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 advent | |
n.(重要事件等的)到来,来临 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 wary | |
adj.谨慎的,机警的,小心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 abide | |
vi.遵守;坚持;vt.忍受 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 flouting | |
v.藐视,轻视( flout的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 exasperated | |
adj.恼怒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 nomination | |
n.提名,任命,提名权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 literally | |
adv.照字面意义,逐字地;确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 unreasonable | |
adj.不讲道理的,不合情理的,过度的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 mainstream | |
n.(思想或行为的)主流;adj.主流的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 outlets | |
n.出口( outlet的名词复数 );经销店;插座;廉价经销店 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 dominant | |
adj.支配的,统治的;占优势的;显性的;n.主因,要素,主要的人(或物);显性基因 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 lessens | |
变少( lessen的第三人称单数 ); 减少(某事物) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 technological | |
adj.技术的;工艺的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 tally | |
n.计数器,记分,一致,测量;vt.计算,记录,使一致;vi.计算,记分,一致 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 democrat | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士;民主党党员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 endorsed | |
vt.& vi.endorse的过去式或过去分词形式v.赞同( endorse的过去式和过去分词 );在(尤指支票的)背面签字;在(文件的)背面写评论;在广告上说本人使用并赞同某产品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 conspiracy | |
n.阴谋,密谋,共谋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 consultant | |
n.顾问;会诊医师,专科医生 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 democrats | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 helping | |
n.食物的一份&adj.帮助人的,辅助的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 forum | |
n.论坛,讨论会 | |
参考例句: |
|
|