Political candidates are fond of more — more votes, more campaign contributions, more media coverage, more time to talk and more words. Rarely does a politician subscribe to the advice of Spartan politician and philosopher Chilon who is credited with the proverb, “less is more.”
That is hard for many, and I will include myself as a talk show host, because there is a tendency to believe if we only said more, we could convince others of the merits of our argument. That is particularly true in candidate debates.
We have all seen and heard it, candidates going over time limits and talking over each other or the moderator in an effort to be heard or counter a point made against them. And that brings us to the planned debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on Sept. 10 on ABC.
At issue is whether the candidates’ microphones will be muted when it is not their turn to talk. Harris wants to leave the mics on. The Trump campaign indicated it wanted to follow the same rules as the June 27 debate with Joe Biden where the mics were muted. Trump has said, “I’d rather have it probably on, but the agreement was that it would be the same as last time.”
Remember the 2020 Trump-Biden debate? It was chaotic with the candidates talking over each other and the moderators struggling to maintain control. At one point, Biden told Trump to “shut up.” That debate is remembered for the acrimony and not the content.
By contrast, the June debate between Trump and Biden was relatively civil because the mics were muted when it wasn’t their turn to speak. Viewers and listeners could actually hear what the candidates were saying.
Multiple media reports suggest Harris wants the mics left on in hopes that Trump will lose his cool and say something that will damage his campaign. That is not a bad strategy, but it does not benefit voters. It is better if voters have the opportunity to hear the candidates without them interrupting each other.
Both Harris and Trump will want to defend themselves against attacks during a debate, and they will need to. Candidates have a way of mischaracterizing their opponents or taking their words out of context. Well-run debates offer the opportunity for the candidates to do that when it is their turn.
A cross-talking slugfest might be more entertaining, but certainly not more enlightening. It would only serve to demoralize undecided voters who will play a significant role in deciding the next election.
So mute the mics and try to remember the counsel of Chilon. The candidates might be surprised to learn just how much voters appreciate how much is not said.
