The following piece is an opinion and does not reflect the views of The Eagle and its staff. All opinions are edited for grammar, style and argument structure and fact-checked, but the opinions are the writer’s own.
As Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump took the stage at the National Constitution Center on Sept. 10, it was evident that the debate differed from its predecessors in lack of a live audience, glaring countdowns and real-time fact-checking. However, the distinctiveness of this debate encompassed more than just the formalities. As demeaning remarks reverberated, gross over-exaggerations sounded and misconstrued facts echoed, the center of so many other debates — policy — was an afterthought.
Since the 2016 presidential election cycle, debates have become hostile, focusing on which candidate can get a better jab at the other rather than whose policy prescriptions are stronger and more plausible. While sensationalism and virality have long been key facets of the presidential persona, the intersection of social media and campaigning have taken it too far.
Where substance and policy might have persuaded voters in the past, Harris inciting a flip-out from Trump has become a much more valuable campaigning tool. Each candidate is vying for those perfect social media moments: comments that will fit perfectly into a square on Instagram and moments that will be played again and again on X. Throughout the debate, amidst the rants and provocation attempts, the candidates were trying largely to sell themselves on social media platforms rather than trying to sell their political platforms, plans and broader representations of their parties. But has it always been this way?
A look at the first debate of the 2012 presidential race between former President Barack Obama and Utah Senator Mitt Romney reveals that, just 12 years ago, debates looked dramatically different. To begin the night, the two shook hands and exchanged pleasantries. This seemingly standard protocol was a source of contention at the start of Tuesday’s debate, as the interaction between Harris and Trump was incredibly forced and awkward. Harris going out of her way to shake Trump’s begrudging hand is representative of the artificial, click-driven nature of debates in the social media era.
The decline in presidential debates at the hand of a social media driven society has been rapid. As Obama and Romney began their remarks that evening, Obama wished his wife a happy anniversary. Though they were opponents, Romney congratulated the President and wished him and his wife, Michelle, well. Just four years later, Trump took the stage with Democratic candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to bicker about missing tax returns and emails. During this election, political memes were everywhere; the emergence of memes and other viral snippets (such as Trump’s “bad hombres” comment) prove that substance in Presidential debates has been swapped for mere snippets of sensationalized content for social media.
Obviously, niceties aren’t the mark of a good debate; however, they display a level of respect that facilitates thorough debate. Obama and Romney weren’t blatantly interrupting each other; they listened to each other’s policy prescriptions and views. When they rebutted, it was with different outlooks on policy and implementation, not with different outlooks on reality.
We need to demand more from our leaders than a facade for the masses on social media. Yet, social media, particularly the messaging and moments that are carefully tailored to pack a powerful punch into a split second of online interaction, is not going to become obsolete in modern politics. However, this isn’t the first time the nation has seen a shift in the way we consume political content and interact with candidates.
The 1960 presidential election, the beginning of a decade of mass change in America, saw an unprecedented presidential debate. As then-Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy and then-Vice President Richard Nixon rebutted and presented their platforms, the nation was not wholly huddled around radios as was commonplace. For the first time in American history, they were watching the debate on television.
This event shifted presidential debates and pushed candidate image to the forefront of the public eye. Throughout the decade, television would become a cultural cornerstone. Entertainment, news and political messaging reached Americans in the comfort of their living rooms. The spread of information via television is paralleled by the unprecedented capacity for information sharing via social media. In a way, social media has become society’s new television — informing, connecting and influencing the masses of America. However, unlike television, social media is difficult to regulate — resulting in a greater emphasis on virality at the expense of quality information and robust political platforms.
In the era of social media, sound bites and virality, we have lost genuine respect and substance in our presidential debates. Yet, this does not mean the art of the debate is dead; it is simply changing as the nation’s dependence on social media increases. Technological advancements and changes in media have a long history of shifting key facets of our democracy. In the 1960s, television introduced candidate image as a key aspect of campaigns; today, virality via social media has become the newest change in campaigning and debates. As we enter deeper into the age of social media, we need to hold our political leaders to high standards — seeing beyond flashy stunts and social media is vital.
Addie DiPaolo is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs and a columnist for The Eagle.
This article was edited by Alana Parker, Rebeca Samano Arellano and Abigail Turner. Copy editing done by Luna Jinks and Nicole Kariuki.
