Past spectacle and the debate to watch

by Jesse Heitz, contributor - 10/04/16 10:53 AM ET

The first presidential debate proved to be a veritable 90 minute summary of the race for the White House thus far. Undoubtedly a fair portion of the over 80 million Americans that tuned into the debate did so to watch a possible political train wreck in real time.

A greater portion of Americans most likely sat in front of their television sets to watch Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump discuss the issues that face the nation, and hopefully offer possible policy remedies.

{mosads}Unfortunately, we were largely treated to an unorthodox debate marked by almost incomprehensible interjections. It was certainly an event that was inherently more sensational than substantive, almost to the point that the casual viewer catching the highlights may have believed the debate to be a work of political comedy.

Reports released within the last few days have indicated that Nigel Farage, the former leader of the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party (UKIP), has traveled to the United States to assist in Trump’s preparation for the upcoming second presidential debate.

Although one certainly hopes that Trump can channel Farage’s passionate and arguably persuasive debate style, rather than his notorious penchant for personal swipes, as was showcased by his now infamous words for President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, who he publicly accused of “having the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk.”

Quite frankly, we’re owed a debate in which the candidates running for the highest office in the land discuss the issues central to America’s citizenry. It turns out that we’re worried about the national debt, perennial budget deficits, and the appreciable slowing of the economy.

We want to know what the future holds for the direction of American foreign policy and how that may impact our sons and daughters in uniform. In short, we want to hear at least a brief synopsis of the candidates’ ideas on solving our nation’s problems, not more of the same unintelligible white noise in the form of endless personal attacks.

As entertaining as persistent and disrespectful interruptions, eye rolling, and patronizing rebuttals are on a Saturday Night Live skit, they’re inexcusable in a presidential debate. Such a patent lack of etiquette and decorum would get a middle school debater reprimanded.

However, I suspect the so-called main card of this particular election may never provide the comprehensive intellectual responses that so many concerned Americans desperately want to see.

Thankfully, there is an upcoming debate that promises a fairly sharp break from the grade school routine we were subjected to on September 26th.

The real show to watch airs tonight. One strongly suspects that the candidates taking the stage in this evening’s Vice-Presidential Debate, both being veteran statesmen — even if largely unrecognizable on a national level, will deviate from their respective running mates’ strategies and delve into the things that really matter.

It should be a real treat for those of us who crave policy substance to hear both sides of the presidential argument in one sitting, although it’s a bit bizarre that the delivery of cogent campaign messages has fallen to the vice presidential candidates.

Jesse Heitz has written and presented over a dozen research papers at both domestic and international conferences, and has written pieces on numerous topics for a variety of publications. He obtained his BA in History from the University of St. Thomas in 2010, a MA in War in the Modern World from King’s College London in 2014, and was approved for the awarding of a MS in Building History from the University of Cambridge in 2016.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Tags Donald Trump Donald Trump Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton Presidential Election 2016