Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump and Biden agreed to debates. That's a lot less important than it was made out to be.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden debate
Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

The Biden and Trump campaigns recently agreed to two presidential debates. Who among us can contain our excitement?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "us." In my corner of the professional world — pundits, commentators, political junkies — there was much rejoicing. Watching the Sunday shows, you could be forgiven for thinking church bells must have rung out to celebrate the news across the nation, as if some medieval queen had given birth to a male heir. The debates are happening! The debates are happening! Huzzah!


Meanwhile, among normal people, that sound you didn't hear was the great mass of humanity shrugging. A smaller segment of the population likely let out an involuntary groan of the sort you make when you find out you got a middle seat on an airplane.

I don't have polling to back this up, but I suspect most Americans would regard the prospect of Donald Trump and Joe Biden yelling at each other like two old men squabbling over the check at a Denny's with resigned exhaustion. Ugh, really? We're doing this again?

Now, I understand why journalists and junkies are excited. For starters, presidential debates inflate the egos of journalists, giving them ample opportunity to talk grandly about the fourth estate's important role in democracy. They're also great for ratings: The first, thoroughly awful 2020 debate was watched by 73 million people.

The drama of politicians offering unscripted -- though often rehearsed -- answers to complicated questions has a Super Bowl-like quality for political nerds. That listening to either of the current presumptive nominees talk is like watching a race car driver behind the wheel of a vehicle without brakes just adds to the excitement. The prospect of a spectacular crash always has a certain dark appeal, and in a Trump-Biden matchup, crashes are assured.

Lost amid the hoopla over the latest debate agreement is the fact that pretty much all presidential debates are tiresome and counterproductive spectacles.

The arguments for debates are often somewhat tautological. We supposedly need to have presidential debates because we've always had presidential debates. But this isn't true.

The first presidential debates, between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, were in 1960 (when Biden and Trump were, respectively, 17 and 14 years old). All anyone remembers about the Kennedy-Nixon debates is the first one, which Nixon lost, according to lore, because he was without makeup, unshaven and sweaty. Again, according to lore, people who listened to the debate on radio thought Nixon won, while people who watched it on television were so impressed by Kennedy's suave style and good looks that they thought he won. Nixon, who was underweight and exhausted during his first appearance, got some rest and good makeup and won the next two debates, which nobody remembers.

In other words, the lesson from the beginning was that style was more important than substance. It has ever been thus.

We think, partly because we are told as much over and over again, that televised debates convey important information to voters. But television makes certain information seem more important than it is, often subliminally. For instance, in most presidential elections, the taller candidate wins. Does height in some way correlate with superior policies?

There's a reason FDR hid his wheelchair from public view. But while I have no end of substantive criticisms of Franklin D. Roosevelt, his having had polio is not among them.

Obviously, television presence is part of modern presidents' job description. But televised presidential debates magnify that qualification beyond all reason. Yes, yes, presidents need to be good communicators. But at no point during their actual presidencies are they ever expected to bicker with a political foe for 90 minutes in front of millions of people.

The political skills we are testing for are not the political skills the job requires. The candidate who forcefully, confidently or amusingly lies is often rewarded by debates, while the candidate who tells the truth awkwardly, hesitantly or with appropriate complexity is often penalized.

The debate "highlight" reels the networks routinely run are full of one-liners, gaffes and falsehoods often treated as true by sympathetic journalists. But I've never seen a really thoughtful explanation of the national debt or another serious problem celebrated as a great moment in debate history.

The prospect of a Biden-Trump rematch is especially deserving of an "Ugh, really?" But the truth is that all presidential debates deserve the same.

First posted May 21, 2024. (C)2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Read More

The Roots of America’s Violence:
White Supremacy, Power, and the Struggle for Dignity
Ragiv:Charlie Kirk in Tampa July 2025 (cropped).jpg - Vükiped

The Roots of America’s Violence: White Supremacy, Power, and the Struggle for Dignity

In September 2025, activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking at a Utah campus event. His death was shocking — not only for its brutality, but because it showed that political violence is not just a relic of the past or a threat on the horizon. It is part of our national identity. Today’s surge in violence follows patterns we’ve seen before. Let’s take a look at that history.

When Pope Alexander VI issued the Doctrine of Discovery in 1493, he gave theological and legal cover for European conquest of lands already inhabited by indigenous people. These papal bulls declared non-Christian peoples “less than” and their lands open for seizure. This was more than a geopolitical maneuver — it embedded into the Western imagination a belief in the inherent supremacy of some over others.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Noosphere Is Here–and the Struggle for Its Soul Now Runs Through Musk, Putin, and Trump

The noosphere is here—and it’s under siege. This essay explores how Musk, Trump, and Putin are shaping the global mind through Starlink, X, and cognitive warfare.

Getty Images, Yuichiro Chino

The Noosphere Is Here–and the Struggle for Its Soul Now Runs Through Musk, Putin, and Trump

In the early 20th century, two thinkers—Russian geochemist Vladimir Vernadsky and French Jesuit philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin—imagined a moment when humanity’s collective consciousness would crystallize into a new planetary layer: the noosphere, from the Greek nous, meaning “mind.” A web of thought enveloping the globe, driven by shared knowledge, science, and a spiritual awakening.

Today, the noosphere is no longer speculation. It is orbiting above us, pulsing through the algorithms of our digital platforms. And it is being weaponized in real time. Its arrival has not ushered in global unity but cognitive warfare. Its architecture is not governed by democracies or international institutions but by a handful of unaccountable actors.

Keep ReadingShow less
2025 Democracy Awards Ceremony Celebrates Bipartisan Excellence in Public Service

The Democracy Awards Ceremony hosted by the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) on Thursday, September 18, 2025

Credit: CMF

2025 Democracy Awards Ceremony Celebrates Bipartisan Excellence in Public Service

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) hosted its annual Democracy Awards Ceremony on Thursday, September 18, recognizing exceptional Members of Congress and staff who exemplify outstanding public service, operational excellence, and innovation in their work on Capitol Hill.

In the stately House Ways & Means Committee Hearing Room, the 8th annual Democracy Awards ceremony unfolded as a heartfelt tribute to the congressional offices honored earlier this summer. The event marked more than just a formal recognition—it was a celebration of integrity, dedication, and the enduring spirit of public service.

Keep ReadingShow less
What Makes Trump’s Power Grab Different?

Workers hang a large photo of President Donald Trump next to a U.S. flag on the facade of the Department of Labor headquarters building in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 27, 2025.

Drew Angerer/AFP/Getty Images/TNS

What Makes Trump’s Power Grab Different?

For many, the evidence is in: Donald Trump wants to be an autocrat. If you haven’t read an op-ed or heard a radio, TV or podcast commentator make that case, it’s probably because you’ve tried hard to avoid doing so. It would require virtually never watching cable news, including pro-Trump outlets, because there are few things Fox News and its imitators love more than running clips of MSNBC hosts and other “resistance” types, not to mention Democratic politicians, melting down over Trump’s “war on democracy,” “authoritarian power-grabs,” etc.

Move further to the right, and you’ll find populists who want Trump to be an autocrat. They use terms like “Red Caesarism,” or “neomonarchism,” while others pine for an American Pinochet or Francisco Franco or compare Trump to biblical figures like the Persian King Cyrus or ancient Israel’s King David. I can’t really blame anyone for taking these pathetic Bonapartists at their word.

Keep ReadingShow less