Since the introduction of television into modern life, televised debates have captured some of the most iconic moments in federal history, shaping public opinion and altering the course of elections. Alongside this, there is a noticeable standard to how these debates were both conducted, and how candidates acted towards one another. In the 1960 election, both Kennedy and Nixon respectfully discussed each other’s differences, while Kennedy was able to surpass Nixon with his suave. During a 1984 debate, when asked about his age, President Reagan famously quipped “I will not exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience”, causing even Democratic candidate Walter Mondale to laugh alongside the crowd. In more recent history, videos have resurfaced of 2008 Republican nominee John McCain always referring to future President Obama with dignity despite their differing stances. Nowadays, it seems that civility has dissipated from debates. With the debacles that have occurred in the two 2024 presidential debates, from false statements and constant attacks, it is important to ask what happened to political courtesy, and what does this mean for the future? Perhaps the answer lies in how polarized the nation is, and how the government may have enabled this.
One of the most visible reasons behind this issue is the governmental and media influence on voters’ opinions. News channels across the country, from CNN to Fox News, have been criticized for leaning towards a certain part of the political spectrum rather than remaining unbiased in their broadcasts. In many other channels as well, hosts often use emotional persuasion instead of unbiased portrayals of facts that sway their audience towards a specific direction, even if the truth is not established correctly. Systems like these have given way to a well-known psychological phenomena called confirmation bias, in which individuals only accept or evaluate information that is consistent with their beliefs and ideologies. In many videos where Trump supporters are questioned, they only believe information that is given from a right-wing news group such as Fox News, and dismiss anything relevant that contradicts what they were told. Voters may also be so invested in their party or candidate that they excuse anything that they have done, even if there is evidence of negative effects of a certain administration or policy. The weaponization of confirmation bias has allowed for individuals to be dehumanized, hence why politicians may treat their opponents as someone to be attacked, rather than someone who deserves respect and a listening ear.
Additionally, many public health issues have been politicized, causing mass contention. After Covid-19, there were differing ideals regarding vaccine mandates across the country. While there were those in favor of a mandate, others opposed it due to political or religious reasons. Other matters that have been heavily controversial are abortion, climate change, and gun control. Due to this division, when candidates are questioned, they often tend to bully the other person and their traits, while often making promises that are not followed through in their leadership. To citizens of other countries, these debates often perplex them. Since their cultures are more collectivist, people do not see any point in arguing, but would rather work towards policies or initiatives that help others in a positive way. For example, New Zealand became one of the first countries to get rid of lockdown mandates due to government compliance. Constant discourse only allows contenders to paint others in a negative light, while also delaying productivity on solving major concerns.
Another cognitive bias that comes into play is group polarization, a major explanation to federal and nationwide division. This social psychological concept occurs when people in a like-minded group are more likely to be extremely convinced of their opinions after their discussions. In the age of social media, Americans become even more convinced that certain policies or ways of life are better as they watch videos or scour posts. Politicians have enabled this to their advantage by marketing based on these extreme ideals at conventions, where groups are most susceptible. The worst case scenario is when citizens adopt harsh stances on identities and sensitive topics such as racial groups, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, and more. When candidates are able to receive robust support on these issues, this translates to the debate stage. It is easier for them to make statements that are either discriminatory, harmful, or fear-inducing as part of their campaign strategy. Moreover, minoritized individuals are more likely to be harassed in the aftermath of these discussions, further perpetuating problems in American society.
Lastly, national spending on education has decreased for many decades, affecting the ability of the common American to think critically and collectively. Since schools are taught in a very Ameri-centric way, children and adults are not aware of other cultures, along with the darker parts of American history. Alongside this, they also are not informed on what other nations are doing properly, especially in relation to increasing quality of life. A plethora of other Western nations are much safer, have better systems, and greater life expectancies. Despite this, Americans are taught to believe that the extreme violence or desperate issues they face are normalized, playing a huge role in campaign strategies. As political candidates take the debate stage, they have the ability to act unprofessionally and condemn ideologies, all while keeping millions in ignorant bliss of what could actually be done to solve problems that the rest of the world doesn’t face.
If these circumstances can change, it is essential that accountability become popularized among officials in power. It should not be accepted for them to treat their counterparts with anything other than poise, and they should not be allowed to make statements that target specific identities. Moreover, the government should do its part to increase educational funding, assisting Americans in becoming more aware of the nation’s faults in an impartial way, so politicians can be held responsible for shortcomings and can propose rightful solutions. Investing in education also means that the next generation of politicians and voters can be well-informed problem solvers who bring about vital change in unprecedented future events.
Televised debates have become a modern sector of America’s democratic institution, growing civic engagement. Recently though, lack of professionalism and decency could threaten this establishment, already subjecting Americans to ridicule worldwide. If individuals are attentive to the various cognitive biases and federal systems that authorize this behavior, and make worthwhile changes, then debates can still be a source of civic inspiration, and less of a subject of derision.