FINDING ANSWERS
When I was senator for two terms during the time of President Cory Aquino and then President Fidel Ramos, I knew fully well the importance of being able to think on one’s feet while on the Senate floor.
To react quickly and be mentally agile while engaging in a furious debate with colleagues, especially during the interpellation period when a Senate bill can undergo intense scrutiny, is essential.
Debating is not just about presenting one’s own arguments but also about understanding and countering those of others. At the least, a senator must be able to critically analyze opposing viewpoints and respond with cogent counter arguments. Such ability is a vital safeguard against flawed policies.
The quality of the final outcome of a proposed bill can depend on the quality of the debates accompanying the measure as it hurdles the processes leading to its ultimate passage on third and final reading prior to its enactment into law.
Not all senators can, or should be expected to, master the art of argumentation and debate. But each and every senator should at least be able to express an idea coherently, not necessarily in English, but in a language in which one can be more articulate.
In other words, being able to present, explain, defend, and challenge ideas in the session hall is supposedly the essence for being of senators worth their salt. A good senator ought to be a good debater.
But not necessarily so if you are President.
Unlike a senator, the highest official of the land need not be a great debater, simply because debating is not required in the supposed job description for the top post.
In actual practice, the President acts more like a panelist in a debate. During meetings on vital issues, the Chief Executive asks questions and listens to responses of the Cabinet men and women who play the role of debaters. Except when the President needs to play the role of devil’s advocate, debating is not his job.
In such context, questions on why US President Joe Biden had to debate with former President Donald Trump come to mind. What exactly did the Democratic Party seek to achieve with last week’s debate that turned out to be disaster for the 81-year-old Biden?
If the purpose of the debate was to make the two men and their policies better known to American voters, the debate was not necessary. Both men and their respective policies are already well-known, with each of them having served four years as president — a job that naturally attracts the widest and most intense media coverage.
As it turned out, the plan of Democrats to present Biden as still fully capable to lead for another four years backfired. In the CNN debate that was dubbed as a contest between “an old man and a con man,” Biden appeared really old. I can imagine how Filipino-Americans supporting Biden must have been pained to see him fumbling, stumbling, and stammering with a raspy and thin voice in putting out unintelligible words, while Trump spewed what fact-checkers branded as blatant lies.
“The president appeared on Thursday night as the shadow of a great public servant. He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in a second term. He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence," the New York Times Editorial Board wrote after the debate.
“The greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election. As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble. There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency,” the NYT board said, but added “it would still support Biden as its ‘unequivocal pick’ if the choice remains between him and former President Trump.”
While mental acuity is required of a president, the lack of such cannot be shown conclusively in one debate where performers, human as they are, can really have a bad night.
Before the advent of television, most presidents got elected without debating anyone. And in modern times, candidates like Hillary Clinton won debates but failed in their presidential bid. So, are presidential debates with particular rules — in which contenders are allotted a limited time to answer, and are, in the case of the CNN debate, prohibited from conferring with campaign staff during commercial breaks — really a good test of fitness for the presidency?
One of MSNBC’s most respected analysts, Lawrence O’Donnell, offered insights on why debates don’t actually test presidential skills: “In the rooms where presidents govern, they are never told they only have two minutes to respond to what someone just said in that room. Presidents never have to make decisions alone. Presidents always have experts’ advice available to them... No one has ever run into the oval office and said, “Mr. President you have 30 seconds to respond.” Never. Nothing presidential is actually being tested in a phony debate that the television industry pretends are invaluable.” ([email protected])