The 2024 Moderators' Guide To Not Failing Americans At The Debate

Has there been a major news outlet anywhere that hasn’t previewed Thursday night’s presidential debate?

We already know everything they — the pundits, prognosticators, and, of course, the true experts, the prevaricators on social media — have to tell  us.

Moments like these are supposed to matter. But I fear we won’t get what needs to be gotten out of the debate between current President Joe Biden and current felon Donald Trump, because the moderators will fail us. I almost feel like we could get the answers we need with a special edition of “Presidential Jeopardy!” where the answers — given in the form of questions, just like the game show — would be far more revealing.

Categories could include:

The Constitution

Ethics

Economics

Pandemics

The National Archives

Impeached Presidents

Famous Walls

Attempted Coups

Mean Tweets

Noises Old People Make

Presidential Word Salads

Extramarital Affairs

White People

Famous Dictators

Of course, that won’t happen, except maybe on “Saturday Night Live.” Instead, we’ll likely see what we’ve seen many times in these debates: moderators asking predictable policy questions, with an occasional made-for-TV drama query about things like Trump’s felony conviction and whether he’ll pardon himself; Biden and his son; or Trump and the Jan. 6 rioters. They might ask about the Supreme Court case (or ruling, by then) on presidential immunity.

Yes, those are valid questions, and they should be asked. But are they the best questions to ask?

Given the concerns about the candidates’ competency because of their age, we should find out just how competent they still are and how knowledgeable they are about our nation’s system of government.

The debate should be a civics test. We need to know whether the person who wants to be president understands how our government works — how various federal agencies help inform an administration on what policies are working, what policies need tweaking, and what new policies need to be proposed.

Do the candidates understand the complexities of financial instruments and principles and how they affect the economy? Do they understand the roles of the Justice Department or the CFPB? What is the CFPB? (The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, if you’re wondering.) Do they understand how immigration law determines what we can and cannot do with immigration policy?

“Describe in complete chronological detail the exact process it takes for a bill to become law. As the challenger, Mr. Trump, you go first.”

Do such questions favor a lifelong politician who has spent his entire political career working with and relying on those instruments and agencies? Obviously. But if your preferred candidate doesn’t know basic civics or the elemental processes of our government, how can he possibly govern effectively and efficiently?

Would such questions prove embarrassing? They might. Would Donald Trump supporters feel the questions were unfair? They would.

I don’t care. I’ll take “F―k Your Feelings” for a thousand, please. The country’s future is at stake. That should be far more important than anyone’s fragile ego.

Think how often someone has said that elected officials should take a civics test so we can see if they know how to do their job. Shouldn’t that be especially relevant for the seeker of the most powerful job on Earth?

I know what you’re thinking: most voters don’t know the answers to such questions. Maybe so, but they’re not running for president. They are, however, hiring someone for the job. That’s really what the candidates are: They’re job applicants. Voters don’t need a foundation in basic civics to see when a candidate proves clueless about the subject. It just takes moderators, by proxy, to serve as tough job interviewers.

This is another area where I fear moderators will fail us: holding the candidates accountable. What will they do to refute distortions, falsehoods and wild claims we know the candidates (especially one particular candidate) will spout?

Trump supporters will cry foul. They’ll call it unfair. Lemme tell ya what’s unfair: It’s unfair to voters to let a candidate, any candidate, get away with spouting misinformation and disinformation.

“Sorry, sir, that’s incorrect.”

“Sorry, sir, that’s a lie, and here’s data from the government agency whose function we asked you about earlier that shows why what you just said is false.”

For example, our last visit to this topic noted the question ABC’s George Stephanopoulos suggested to open the debate: “Who won the 2020 election?”

It should be no more than a two-word answer, but when the loser of that election, Donald Trump, starts playing the victim and claims it was stolen, the moderators should ask him a series of follow-up questions. Start with those five-dozen-plus lawsuits that failed to prove his claim. Ask him why those lawsuits failed.

Ask him to explain: “What is a fake elector?” (“What is an elector?”) “Is it illegal for a candidate to call a secretary of state and ask him to find 11,000 votes?”

Don’t ask questions about job growth. Ask questions that force him to defend his false assertions about job growth.

“Mr. Trump: You have stated that virtually 100% of the new jobs under President Biden have gone to illegal aliens. From what government agency did you get that information? Because Labor Department figures show that since Joe Biden became president in January 2021, employment of U.S.-born workers has increased more than employment of foreign-born workers, which includes those in the U.S. legally.”

When he says that’s not true, ask him, “Are you calling the people at the Bureau of Labor Statistics liars?”

This is how civics questions and questions about rudimentary governance can open the door to policy dissemination.

“Explain how global supply chains help or hurt the price of goods in the United States.”

“Explain how the personal savings rate affects the cost of goods and the rate of inflation.”

“How did the pandemic affect the price of fuel and goods?”

“If the economy is doing so badly here in the United States, why is it stronger than any other economy on Earth right now?”

“Why did the inflation rate drop from 9% to under 4%, and why has it stayed under 4% for the last 30 months?”

“Explain the difference between climate and weather and how Sharpies can affect them?”

Sorry, I couldn’t resist, but is that so terrible a question to ask? I’d love to see the moderators ask that question and then show that photo of Trump holding up the doctored map. (Trump wrongfully took that map, along with hundreds of other White House documents to his Florida residence.)

Imagine asking this hypothetical: “If a sub-par college student who ran every business he had into the ground, cheated on each of his three wives and was involved in 3,500 lawsuits, would you vote for him?”

Is it so wrong to ask why so many people who served in the Trump administration have been indicted or jailed? Is it too embarrassing to ask why so many others who served in the Trump administration say he is unfit for office?

Mr. Biden, same questions.

Moderators always ask questions about a candidate’s plans for a future administration. Okay, Donald. If you get reelected, can you name the people you plan to throw in jail? Cite which laws they broke and share what evidence supports that?

Biden doesn’t need a civics test, but he shouldn’t get a pass, either. Mr. President, it’s easy to see why voters hate Donald Trump. But the percentage of “double-haters,” voters who hate both candidates, has never been higher. Why?

“President Biden, you often say the economy is doing well, and economists would agree. So why do voters think the economy stinks?”

“Scholars of various disciplines agree you’ve done a good job as president. Presidential historians have consistently ranked you in the top 20 in their annual presidential greatness list. You’re 14th on this year’s list. Donald Trump consistently ranks in the bottom three and is last on this year’s list. Why aren’t you kicking his ass in the polls?”

We won’t get any of those questions, but I’d settle for the moderators to not be moderators if they would just be journalists. Insistent. Invasive. Merciless. This ain’t CNN’s “State of the Union,” where talking points and evasive answers rule the day. Sunday morning hosts have to play nice. Otherwise, guests might stop appearing on their shows.

The debate forum is a different animal. Use it to help reveal who these candidates are. And aren’t. The American public deserves it.