On September 10, 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump entered into an intense battle of wits and words on live television in hopes of persuading the country that they should become the nation’s 47th president. The presidential debate has been a long-standing tradition of the United States and is incredibly important in influencing the population’s vote. It is especially influential for young, first time voters like the seniors at Lambert High gearing up to cast their very first ballots. However, the American political climate has become more polarized and the divides have become larger, leading to many people already having their minds set on who they will vote for. In such a disjointed society, it is difficult to see how this debate truly benefits the young voter and helps them make a decision.
The debate featured a fierce exchange between the former president and current vice president as they tackled several key issues, laying bare the deep ideological divides shaping the election. Harris, representing the Democratic party, emphasized her administration’s commitment to social justice, economic reform and climate change mitigation, positioning herself as the voice for progress and unity. On the other hand, Trump centered his arguments on a return to “America’s Greatness”, vowing to reinforce the economy by cutting government spending, stricter immigration policies and a stronger stance on national security.
In addition to domestic policy, key global events such as the war in Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic became major points of contention. While Vice President Harris pledged continued U.S. support for Ukraine, the former president signaled a more isolationist approach, criticizing U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts and advocating for peace negotiations with Russia.
Another significant moment was when Harris criticized Trump’s handling of the global pandemic, claiming that more effective leadership could have saved several lives. In response, Trump doubled down on his economic achievements, maintaining that jobs and stability had returned under his policies before the pandemic struck.
The recent September debate became a hot topic of discussion on social media, aside from the policies the Trump and Harris campaigns brought to the table. The debate became a focal point of tabloid articles and several conspiracy theories including one featuring Vice President Harris’ hidden earpiece supposedly feeding her content in real-time, Trump’s polemical remark regarding the immigrant community in Springfield and the moderators’ evident favoritism towards Harris.
The composition of a presidential debate has shifted gradually over decades. The first televised presidential debate occurred in 1960, where Republican vice president Richard Nixon and Democratic senator John F. Kennedy took to the stage. Prior to this, presidential debates only occurred in a room with a few people in attendance, and their impact was limited to those who could physically witness them. However, the 1960 debate marked a turning point in how presidential campaigns reached people. The target audience was no longer just erudite politicians but the average American. Kennedy’s poised and charismatic presence on camera stood in stark contrast to Nixon’s uncomfortable and fatigued appearance, leading many to believe that this debate played a pivotal role in Kennedy’s eventual victory.
In today’s political landscape, the presidential debate seems to have lost much of its original purpose and integrity. What was once a forum for thoughtful discussion and policy exploration has, in many cases, has devolved into little more than a spectacle of personal attacks.
“If you look back to the days of Reagan and those ages where people could have civil debates and people could actually listen to the policies and not just personal attacks; that’s not what we see anymore,” Lambert junior and president of Lambert’s Speech and Debate club Sam Kovi said. ” Now, it’s just like constantly attacking another person’s credentials; who they are as a person. You don’t see a lot of substance being debated here.”
Instead of engaging in nuanced policy discussions that could sway undecided voters, modern debates often descend into name-calling and disinformation, leaving little room for substantive dialogue. For many young voters, especially those coming of age in the era of social media and hyper-partisanship, these televised debates appear more like theatrical performances than forums for serious debate.
Regardless, this election marks a pivotal milestone for many Gen Z voters who will be casting their ballots for the first time. Many still believe that these debates offer a valuable opportunity for young voters to witness the candidates’ stance on critical issues, from economic policies to climate change.
“As long as we’re able to glean information from these debates, take that with a certain amount of relevance and then also find our own information online, we can garner a little bit more of an informed stance when we’re voting,” Lambert senior and president of the Junior Economic Club of Atlanta Neal Karani stated.
While this debate didn’t seem to sway many voters from their previous stances, the hope remains that, as always, people leave the debate with a better understanding of their presidential candidates and what they stand for. Looking into the future, this discourse should be more informative, structured and nuanced, leaving voters with a clear vision of each candidates’ policies and character. Electing the leader of the free world is no trivial matter; therefore, each and every citizen should be prepared and ready to do their civic duty by voting on November 5 with the utmost clarity.
