“Will you just shut up, man?”
“It’s hard to get a word in with this clown.”
“Keep yapping, man.”
“Can he just shush for a moment?”
There are times you go to the theatre and need not read the reviews the next day because you know the script was so shaky, the lines so pretentious, the plot so lost, that everyone will agree it was time you can now never get back. Such was the consensus case Tuesday night with the bad sequel to Grumpy Old Men, aka the U.S. Presidential Debate, a misnomer if there ever was one, a disgraceful showing of how politics have degenerated and stand to ignite further civil unrest as a consequence.
No one could think the 90-plus minutes of aural fisticuffs would illuminate positions or inspire confidence in how the most powerful nation would be governed in the years ahead. But few could have expected such a profoundly sad showing on the state of our political differences. American discourse has devolved into talking past each other, and Tuesday’s episode felt like the penultimate stage before everything blows apart.
It is true that Trump was Trump, not unexpected as someone who probably couldn’t even keep quiet in a moment of silence, hectoring and berating as a substitute for persuading and convincing. But it is also true that Biden was Biden, easily emotionally baited and prepared to join his onstage partner in the mud.
It is frightening that Trump extolled the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” and would not decry the tinderbox he runs or its extremists by name. Given his insistence that the election will not be conducted credibly, it has to be worrisome that any outcome now carries with it a threat more than a resolution.
But it is disquieting that Biden’s principal accomplishment on the night was the infantilizing of his foe. Perhaps it was too much to expect anyone could bring substance and dignity to the octagon, perhaps he was just getting things off his chest on behalf of an ungrateful public, but his derision did little more than make him seem capable of a low-wattage bluster against the incumbent.
Then again, the system that permitted both candidates to reach their positions brings with it little in the way of true accountability or a rein on their conceits. It is an every-four-year wonder that the system produces these choices among hundreds of millions of options to hold the office.
It might well be the case, as Biden put it, that Trump has been “the worst president we’ve ever had,” but about the best you could infer amid the white noise to gain the White House was that Biden would be some sort of reboot, not any particular advancement on the hardware of the presidency.
For those fretting they would witness some kind of “sleepy Joe” experience, it was redeeming to see someone pour insults for an hour-and-a-half into the atmosphere and commingle the occasional fact without failing the so-called dribble test. You could conclude that, as a result, Biden won the night. But it’s a thin gruel of consolation, because both men kept larger-than-life energy all debate in their authentic, flawed selves. The real winners might have been people who didn’t watch.
Lest you think this is only madness below the border, safely out of sight and reach, check the trade picture and economic dependence on the U.S. What happened on that stage will affect what happens on ours.
Debates are a curious political phenomenon, because in many instances they supersede a campaign’s groundwork to establish a candidate’s advantages in seeking the position. Tuesday’s clash was more about affirmation, so it is doubtful it changed many minds to stray from a particular camp. Today both cohorts are more motivated and assured than they were yesterday. Really, though, do we need two more of these? Is there any script that could save the farce?
Kirk LaPointe is publisher and editor-in-chief of Business in Vancouver and vice-president, editorial, of Glacier Media.