As I am writing this, Donald Trump has said that he will not engage in a second debate with Kamala Harris. This was smart, but it would have been smarter if he had said he wouldn’t enter the first debate.

This isn’t because Trump’s performance was weak—which of course it was—but because a “debate” involving immediate decision on programs or policy is a particularly ineffective way to determine whether a candidate has an aptitude to be president.

Donald Trump is not a debater. He is an executive; presented with a problem or a need for decision, he told people who worked for him what they should do and how they should do it; Kamala Harris, on the other hand, is a lawyer, trained to present an argument to a court, whether her case is strong or weak. If we keep selecting our chief executives through debates, we will be selecting for the wrong skills. 

The idea that presidents—or candidates for president—should debate is only sensible if both candidates are equipped for it. When only one is equipped, the outcome is bound to be unfair for the non-debater, which in this case was Trump.

Still, the American people are entitled to hear the candidates’ individual views—their policies and the facts they rely on for developing these policies—but there is no reason for requiring them to do this together, on national television, and with questions from people who otherwise frame news issues for presentation to the American people.

Trump’s deficiencies in the contest that framed the debate with Harris were obvious. He could not limit his comments to the question presented and then go on to deal with the implications.

Let’s take the example of the question on “fracking.”

Linsey Davis, one of the ABC hosts, asked Harris why she changed her position on fracking.

Harris said she had changed because “We have got to invest in diverse sources of energy…so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil.”

A lawyer would have seen see this answer as an opportunity to challenge her veracity. His response would be “When did you first realize that we were excessively dependent on foreign oil?” The subtext of the question was, of course, that in the American people’s experience we have always been too dependent on foreign oil. In addition, this was the second time Harris had said she no longer opposed fracking. (The first was when she was interviewed by CNN.)

Trump’s mind doesn’t work this way. Her veracity wasn’t the issue to him. He saw her answer as untrue, and said “Fracking? She’s been against it for 12 years.” That was what was important to him. That she had changed her mind was not. The fracking question was the most important in the Pennsylvania debate, and he thought it was relevant that she’d been against it for 12 years.

To people in Pennsylvania, the question was whether what she said was a sincere conversion or just an insincere grab for their vote. A lawyer would have followed up by asking when she had realized that the US was too dependent on foreign oil, or whether she was just changing her position because the debate was in Pennsylvania where fracking is popular. 

This shows Trump’s deficiencies as a debater, but—more important—it shows the deficiency of a debate or debate preparation as a mechanism for eliciting a candidate’s capabilities to be president. 

Decision-makers like presidents do not develop policies the way candidates develop answers to debate questions. When a president is confronted with a problem that requires policy formulation, he does not immediately consider how his solution will fly when presented to Congress—if legislation is necessary—or to the American people, if the solution requires an action for which the peoples’ support is necessary.

He first consults advisers, some of whom are specialists in the area or areas where the policies will be applied, and others are specialists in the politics of the decision.

Sometimes, if there is time, the policy can be tested with a few speeches, by cabinet members, national security experts, or even allied members of Congress.

A debate is never considered; although, if there are legal issues, government or even private lawyers are consulted to determine how the courts would respond if the issue is litigated. 

A debate does not test a candidate’s capabilities to be president—far from it—but it’s popular with news organizations because it sells a lot of TV advertising time.

Answering questions from news specialists with knowledge about a particular issue—whether it’s energy policy or foreign policy—is a sensible way to elicit a candidate’s underlying knowledge and his ability to formulate policy. A debate is not. 

The post Let’s Scrap Presidential Debates appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.