������Ƶ

Joe Biden gets all the criticism for his debate performance. He was for sure scary, turn-away-from-the-television awful.

But the debate’s stilted, obsessively control-oriented format has gotten a free pass. It shouldn’t. The format contributed to Biden’s awfulness by creating a setting that kept him from doing what he does best — passionate engagement, Biden unhinged.

Even a sick old person has a shot at rising to the occasion if the setting is right. The CNN setting could not have been more wrong.

The tragicomic irony here is that a format designed to control Trump turned out to liberate him.

The former president was Trump without the illegal fireworks but still the essence of Trump. No problem

For Biden the rules were a chastity belt — lots of protection at the expense of meaningful engagement.

Here’s what I mean. Start with Joe Biden the day after. Just hours after the debate, Biden spoke to a crowd in North Carolina. He was chipper, upbeat and his voice was surprisingly strong.

He loved being there. The noise, the crowd, the stage — they stimulated him. He drew an enormous amount of energy from all that schmoozing, touching and congratulating. 

He was energized the way so many politicians are energized, by the best performance enhancing drug of all:

“The people love me, baby.”

It was Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address all over again.

Settings matter. The funny thing is that the debate setting mattered in ways that CNN never anticipated.

The CNN setting was all about sheltering. Gimme shelter from mayhem, bad manners, bullying and intimidation.  

This was the latest version of Debate Do’s and Don’ts based on the idea that things have gotten out of hand, which real-life translates into “How do we control Donald Trump?”

Supposedly, keep the temperature down, set firm guidelines and reduce unruly confrontations between the candidates.

The CNN protocol allowed for no opening statements. When each candidate spoke, the other candidate’s mic was turned off. Trump and Biden were physically separated from one another. No handshakes. 

And no studio audience either because, you know, spectators are vectors for shouting and pandering disease.

The candidates might as well have been on separate continents. In their small, confined spaces they looked like defendants in a Communist show trial.

And the two moderators had the demeanor of a vice principal for discipline enforcing the middle school rules against horseplay.

So, how did all that decorum planning work out? Fine for Trump. He followed the rules to a tee. And why not? He could say whatever he wanted because however strict the rules are on paper, they cannot control the speaker’s content.

When Donald Trump talked, he filled the room. He did not need the setting to goose him up. 

When Joe Biden talked, the room went dead. And never fully came back — up when the ex-president spoke, down when the president spoke, with an overall downward slope.

The whole thing was so freaking listless. I have never witnessed a political debate where the moderators had to remind the candidates that they still had more time to talk. Telling a politician that he talked too little. You heard me right.

Not surprisingly, the candidates’ closing statements sunk to the occasion.

Don’t see what I’m saying as an apology or excuse for Joe Biden. If the debate made anything clear, it is that the president at times has some significant cognitive issues. He’s like a lot of old folks.

I consider myself a warrior for the aged, but I think appearing by two writers critical of Biden who have no skin in the game are worth reading.

But public performers, whether they are entertainers or politicians, rise to the occasion if the situation is right. They find a way to go on with the show.

Could Biden have turned things totally around if the rules had encouraged engagement and goosed him up more to go on with the show? Not really. But different rules could have stimulated him to rise to the occasion and do better.

The debate, then, exposed the weaknesses of Joe Biden but also the weaknesses of political debates.

The CNN protocol was all about propriety and almost nothing about engagement.

There were no fireworks, no passion, not even from Trump.

The debate trap assumes that those are bad things, and with the proper procedures, a debate can produce a moment of civility and rationality in a crazy world.

That may sound like a good idea, but it’s not because that idea is based on the false notion that we can counter the enormous amount of bad politics — gridlock, polarization and the like — with proper debate procedures.

So much for putting a finger in that dike. Debates have moved from being chaotic to being artificial, sad and dull. They have become stultifying because the rules encourage stultification.

Politics is full of passion, irrationality, misunderstandings and myths. Debates should show this rather than take on the task of civilized but false decorum. Debate planners have no business trying to counter these politics. It’s their job to show it as it is.

Despite all the handwringing about the way Trump acted in his 2020 debates with Joe Biden or Trump’s 2016 debates with Hillary Clinton, and Biden came out of those debates quite well.

It makes sense to move debates the other way toward more chaos and direct engagement. 

Would seeing more of the uptempo, engaging part of Biden make me worry less about his capacity to be president? Not really.

And if he did badly? So be it. At least we would have a fuller picture of his limits and flaws.

Is the debate’s Miss Manners format enough to make me worry more about what happens when debates naively and harmfully try to cleanse the passion out of politics?

For sure.

Discussion about dementia and doubt aside, what happened on CNN shows that debates need to move away from the vice principal’s office and more toward reality TV.

No problem for Trump. He came out of reality TV. As for Biden, certainly better than he did on CNN.

And if he did badly? So be it. At least we would have a fuller picture of his limits and flaws.

That’s what debates are supposed to do — offer a fuller picture.