- Symbolic of perhaps the nastiest election ever
US Presidential debates have now been held (and televised) for 60 years now, with the candidates of major parties facing off to show voters what they are made of. The first of the two debates between incumbent President Donald Trump, the Republican standard-bearer, and his Democrat nominee, Joe Biden, who had been Vice-President under Barack Obama in 2008-2016, was in keeping with that tradition. However, what was not traditional was the rancorous tone of the debate. And it could be seen that this rancor had been introduced by President Trump, whose interruptions of Vice-President Biden, and ill-natured sniping with the moderator, did nothing to add lustre to his office.
The substance of what President Trump also raised something of a spectre that no one had ever thought possible. His refusal to condemn white supremacists merely added to the conviction of many that he is a racist, but it also threw the spotlight on a group that will probably play a key role if he does what is being predicted of him, and which he has consistently avoided saying he will do: accept the results. With the election likely to go to the Supreme Court for decision, the President’s attempt to have his nominee seated in place of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg indicates that he has no intention of accepting the initial results. He again refused to endorse the postal ballots, which he claims will be the means to commit election fraud.
Politics is a tough, even cut-throat, business. However, democracy is supposed to introduce an element of civility in it, of creating a set of rules to prevent a no-holds-barred power struggle and creating a certain means of succession. American democracy has long been held up as an example of how democracy is supposed to function. The first presidential debate showed an unattractive side of that democracy. Proponents of democracy would hope that the second debate, and more importantly the election itself, will be a better exemplar of how democracy is supposed to function. The debate itself shows that the two candidates are not inclined to follow the rules, which is unfortunate, because that is what democracy is all about: following rules.
