Presidential debates have long been considered a key aspect of the democratic process, but their true usefulness in selecting a leader may be overstated. While debates provide a platform for candidates to demonstrate their quick thinking and rhetorical skills, they do not always reveal the qualities necessary for effective governance. Picking a president based on debate performance is like choosing a baseball pitcher based on his ability to arm wrestle: arm wrestling might give a little insight into a pitcher’s arm strength, but it is not a reliable indicator of success on the field. Similarly, a candidate’s debate skills offer only a narrow glimpse into their ability to lead a nation.
Take, for example, the recent debate between Trump and Harris. On the surface, it appeared that Harris won on style. She was poised and polished, handling herself with calmness and tact. However, beneath the surface, her decision to avoid answering lingering questions about her policies may have done more damage than good. In contrast, Trump came across as aggressive and over-the-top, but he remains a known quantity, particularly when it comes to economic and foreign policy matters. Harris, by attempting to shift more toward the political center, finds herself grappling with perceptions from both sides of the political spectrum. She hails from a tradition that some view as far-left, and her recent stance has led to concerns about her political consistency.
In hindsight, what seemed like a victory for Harris in the immediate aftermath of the debate may, upon further reflection, end up benefiting Trump. Voters often lean toward certainty, and Trump’s brash approach, while polarizing, leaves little doubt about where he stands. Harris, by avoiding direct answers, may have created a sense of ambiguity that will linger in the minds of voters, causing them to question her leadership potential.
Presidential debates often emphasize style over substance, pushing candidates to focus on one-liners, stage presence, and quick responses rather than long-term strategic thinking and policy depth. Debates rarely give voters a clear picture of a candidate’s ability to navigate the intricacies of governing, such as crafting economic policy, managing international relationships, or building coalitions to enact legislation. These tasks require skills that are not typically showcased in a debate format, where the focus is on scoring points rather than on thoughtful decision-making.
In the case of Harris, while her style in the debate may have initially seemed like a win, her reluctance to address substantive policy questions could diminish her appeal in the long run. Meanwhile, Trump’s performance, despite its abrasiveness, may have reinforced his standing among his supporters by solidifying his image as a straightforward, predictable figure on key issues like the economy and foreign policy. This underscores how debates often distort voters’ perception, making them focus on moments that don’t necessarily reflect a candidate’s readiness to lead the nation. In the end, debates are more performance than governance, and placing too much weight on them may lead voters to miss what truly matters in a leader.