There was a time when presidential debates were helpful and informative. The first ones that I watched were between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. Still in high school, I didn’t understand much, but the subsequent analysis was that over the course of the four debates, the two men had broken about even. Despite the usefulness of those first debates, they were not held again until Election 1976, when incumbent Gerald Ford debated Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter.
Presidential debates continued to be generally respectful and reasonably informative. Competing philosophies and governing principles were discussed along with differences relating to both domestic and foreign policy. Viewers could assess the distinctions and feel that they had learned more by the end of the debate than they had known at the beginning.
All of that changed in Election 2016 and grew even worse in Election 2020, primarily due to the presence of Donald Trump, who either cannot or will not engage in a mutually respectful debate. His rude and bullying behavior brought out the worst in his opponents, Hillary Clinton and then Joe Biden. He has been described accurately as a bull who carries around his own china shop. The result has been to degrade the most recent debates into spraying contests between two skunks, with neither candidate winning and both walking away wet and smelly.
Back in 2012, while my wife and I were still living in State College, Pennsylvania, the home of Penn State University, I had the honor of being invited to join a small group of people whose existence had not been known to me. There were about 15 members, and they came from all walks of life and multiple points of view. The criteria for invitation, as I found out, was not only viewpoint diversity, but also the commitment to listen to each other with the intent of understanding, and then reflecting back what you understood, as opposed to listening with the intent of arguing back. The whole point was not to win arguments, but to increase knowledge and to reach mutual and respectful understanding. Those who were incapable of that were disinvited from the group, and that happened one evening when one of the newest members made a personal attack on another member on the basis of an expressed opinion, claiming that they were ignorant.
The best meeting that we ever held was the time we decided to get together and listen to the first Obama/Romney debate. It had become clear to me that about two-thirds of the group leaned left and about one-third to the right, not surprising in a university town. But this was not a highly partisan group. To the contrary, they saw themselves as honest brokers and were willing to call balls and strikes regardless of political leanings. At the conclusion of the debate, we turned off the television because we didn’t want our discussion to be influenced by the commentariat. After a brief discussion, the consensus was that Romney had prevailed. How refreshing it was to share ideas with informed and honorable people who put intellectual integrity above their personal egos and partisan politics.
For me, the nearest thing to that here in the Williamsburg area are the regular coffee klatches that I have been invited to attend with my dear friend and fellow Gazette columnist Frank Shatz. The small group of regulars who attend don’t always discuss the issues of the day, but when we do, even though our politics are diverse, there has never been a word spoken in anger. Every discussion has been not only mutually respectful, but also informative. It has been a great honor to be invited to that group by Mr. Shatz, and he has become a beloved friend to me and many others. I hope readers will forgive the male reference, but I have had only three people in my life who I would describe as a “Renaissance Man” — one history professor emeritus, one mayor of State College and Frank Shatz.
At the opposite end of the spectrum lie the pending presidential “debates” between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. If past is prologue, they will generate much heat and very little light. I will watch them of course, but only out of a sense of journalistic duty along with a certain degree of morbid curiosity. I will hope for the best, but what I expect to see is hyperbole, fear-mongering and slow-motion train wrecks.
Joseph Filko has taught economics and American government, and lives in Williamsburg. He can be reached at jfilko1944@gmail.com.
