America Lost the Debate: When Questions of Character Overshadow Answers about the Future

I watched Sunday night’s debate from seat 39B on a flight from Chicago to Phoenix. I’d never bought in-flight entertainment before but found myself all the way back in the last row, sandwiched in the middle seat. In the aisle seat sat a white guy who plopped his whole forearm down on the armrest, and in the window, an older Asian woman who put her hoodie on backwards, put the hood up over her face, and hovered her head over my shoulder.

Trapped in this position for four hours, buying in-flight entertainment felt more like a necessity than a luxury. Besides, I just had to hear how Trump planned to skirt out of not only answering every question directed at him, but, more importantly, to justify his sexual assault comments, which had just become the most newsworthy story of the election.

And after a brief apology, his only defense was, “At least I’m not as bad as ISIS.” And I can’t believe I am typing this, but even that’s debatable (not to be confused with That’s Debatable, The Prompt’s very reputable podcast).

The debate seemed completely pointless for both Republicans and Democrats. I’ll never claim to be a political expert or a die-hard political follower, but I care about our nation’s future and the point of a debate is to, at the very least, hear where candidates stand on the concerning issues of our day.

Maybe that betters my point as someone without an vast knowledge or understanding in the subject matter. I found myself clamoring for a more substantive conversation of issues. Instead, I found myself listening to a parent-teacher conference after two students got suspended for fighting in the cafeteria.

Both Trump and Hillary Clinton seemed to be called to the principal’s office, to discuss the following:

• Do you feel you’re modeling appropriate and positive behavior for today’s youth?
• Sexual Assault discussion.
• Trump says the campaign has changed him. When did that happen?
• Is it OK for politicians to be two-faced?
• Disclosing tax returns.
• Do you believe you can be a devoted president to all the people in the United States?
• Does Mr. Trump have the discipline to be a good leader?
• Regardless of the current rhetoric, would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another?

Between these questions, the moderators and audience asked some good questions about the future of America, and maybe a handful of those questions were truly addressed. But, even on the more important topics, it mostly seemed like a parade of whining and diversion tactics, designed to avoid answering anything with a concrete stance.

To a larger point, do bulleted questions above seem like the caliber of questions that should be aimed at candidates running for the highest office in the land? Aren’t these “gimmies?” Anyone can avoid questions like these and it only added to the finger-pointing and name-calling that has become the format of these debates, and of the political process more broadly.

Are questions like these turning the presidential race into the reality TV show that Trump wants it to be, and that he obviously excels at? Why give him this stage he wants? Did other presidential candidates have to answer questions like these? Why not just keep peppering the candidates with questions that actually matter and actually listen to the responses or lack thereof?

Am I home sick from middle school watching Jerry Springer reruns?

Because it was a town hall debate, the American people also asked some decent and meaningful questions of the candidates. The responsible, appropriate thing to do would have been to dedicate more time on the candidates’ actual policies, action plans, and political stances. Rather than putting these two candidates in a position to point fingers, call each other names, and cry, like the baby in the row next to me. All. Flight. Long.