Debates Highlight Political Shortcomings

On June 27, the first debate between US President Joe Biden and Republican challenger Donald Trump took place in the run-up to the November elections. This was  a debate between the two oldest candidates in the history of the United States. It was a debate about who will lead the No. 1 country in the world. It was a contest in which there was talk of sexual scandals, age issues, war veterans, little about the economy and social balance, and even golf.

Antonio Gutiérrez Rubí concluded his analysis of the June 27 debate between Biden and Trump in the El País newspaper with this paragraph: The final balance is very poor: both have shown their limitations. The election is defined. Voters must choose the least bad of the two. And this lack of mobilizing energy can seriously harm the Democrats. Voting resigned is voting defeated. That is why, despite everything, Trump manages to win because Biden does not manage to strongly open the hope that there is still a fight.

Electoral debates have lost the confrontation of political programs that they had in the ‘80s and ‘90s. It is not that the past was necessarily better, but that the reality of political debate has lost its luster and color. Political communication, the confrontation of ideas, and the presentation of valuable programs have lost their richness and value.

Democracy, which continues to be the most imperfect of the most valid political systems, continues to present more challenges than solutions. No one can demand that a political system be perfect, but it should work for society. Among aristocracy, gerontocracy, dictatorships, and oligarchies, democracy manages to navigate through enormous difficulties and controls. Its protections and course as a system are a shared responsibility of all.

In this imperfection of the best political system, more than 2 billion human beings are immersed in 2024. Political communication needs to rethink itself and establish its values just like democracy itself. Communicating goes beyond the boring consideration of commonplaces that are repeated today in almost all political platforms. We should return to the quality of communication of the Carnation Revolution in Portugal, the Spanish transition, the messages of Angela Merkel, the messages of Vaclav Havel in the former Czechoslovakia, or the direct and simple proposal of the Polish electrician Lech Walesa.

In these situations and with these politicians, there were no indiscriminate attacks, banalities, grotesque shows, vile mockery, sensationalism, or easy laughs. Something as important as democracy was at stake, and it could not be joked about. Today, democracy seems like a toy that can be manipulated and easily moved without any consequences.

Perhaps there are not even solid messages. Everything remains between liquid and gaseous. In political philosophy, there is liquid thinking and gaseous thinking, while societies desperately need solid thinking. There is no serious chemistry in current political communication. This reality is evident in the pathetic political debates that resemble more a stand-up diatribe than an exercise in responsible communication.

Have we lost political leadership? Has the electorate changed its mentality and  accepted the logic of show business? Is the vote decided on an emotional rather than rational line? Have we lost critical analysis and entered the loop of valueless messages?

The Western world, the cradle of democracy, despises itself in many ways. And within it all, it also despises the democratic achievements gained over the centuries. The plays of alliances, percentages, and negotiations overcome principles. France, for example, is now situated in two large blocks: the extreme left and the extreme right, against a limited 12% centrist voter. Does the electorate want extreme proposals? Does the fatigue of constitutional and "patriotic" parties stir the authoritarian guts of the masses?

There is a nostalgia for absolute powers. At the center of many political issues and decisions are the essential problems of Western societies: migration, security, polarization, education, and health systems. Problems exacerbated at this moment and fodder for political communication, particularly in debates.

Specific solutions should be expected, not recriminations and mockery of the interpretation of all these structural issues. We must always return to the basics. Communication focuses on the message. If there is no message, communication is not verified. It is as simple as clear water. If there is no communication, there is no debate. If there is no debate, there is no critical analysis.

In our century, the vote leans toward the least bad options. This means that the communication typical of elections is not good; in any case, it is attended to as the least bad. Is this how we intend to continue adding value to democracy? As long as we remain in conceptual poverty, we will only obtain a poverty of vote and a poverty of the style of politicians who are elected as showmen rather than as public administrators.

Debates clearly show political shortcomings, and offer all opportunities for improvement.