Political debate has stood as a hallmark of American democracy for 250 years. Yet, the progression of debates over that time period has been anything but straightforward—evolving as unpredictably as the very institution of American republicanism.
Early American political debate saw a period of change in the late 19th century, with the expansion of technologies like the telegraph and railroad bringing significant increases in the availability of information. The rise of these technologies culminated in widespread fixation on a series of debates between Congressman Abraham Lincoln and Senator Stephen Douglas, both running for the Illinois Senate seat in 1858. The Lincoln-Douglas debates touched on a variety of issues concerning antebellum society, most notably the future of slavery and the idea of popular sovereignty. Despite Lincoln’s outsized public support following the debates, electing senators was a power reserved to the state legislature prior to the 17th Amendment, and in early 1859, Douglas was reappointed to the Senate. While the debate did not sway the predetermined opinions of the political elite, it provided the public with a far more detailed picture of political discourse than was previously available—even if both Lincoln and Douglas were speaking to the Illinois Legislature first and to their fellow citizens second.
The presidential debates of 1960 saw another pivotal turning point in the accessibility of American national elections. On September 26 of that year, debates became available to Americans through a new form of media: lLive television. Citizens could now see both candidates face off in real time, opening political discourse to new swathes of the population. As with most major technological changes, this new form of debate visibility brought with it unintended consequences. Post-debate analyses showed that the at-home audience was uninterested in the policy positions that both candidates presented. Instead, the public was largely concerned with John F. Kennedy’s attractiveness and Richard Nixon’s sweaty appearance when deciding who won the debate. Ultimately, factors like room temperature, lighting, and the candidate’s suit color took precedence over the substance of their arguments, playing an all-too-pivotal role in whether or not a candidate was considered successful.
The Kennedy-Nixon debates marked the onset of a larger trend that has defined political discourse well into the 21st century. As their accessibility increased, debates became battles for media attention that were less concerned with long-winded policy arguments and more focused on easily digestible audiovisuals. Professors Kathleen Jamieson and David Birdsell best summarized the change: Whereas in the debates of the 19th century, music and “entertainment had lured audiences to speeches,” with the proliferation of digitized debates, the “speech became entertainment.” To get voters to turn out for a debate or political speech is one thing. With the introduction of the television, a different broadcast or video existed just a few buttons away, putting the onus of keeping viewers engaged on the candidates themselves. In 1979, at-home viewers faced a difficult choice: watching material about presidential contender “Teddy” Kennedy or a broadcast of Steven Spielberg’s Jaws. The latter, unsurprisingly, was the overwhelming favorite. Who would want to watch someone drone on about policy when thrilling cinema is on the next channel?
With the popularization of short-form video content and social media apps over the past decade, emphasis on debates as a form of entertainment has only been exacerbated. On platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok, viewers at home can immediately post their own takes on the debate content as it plays on their screens. Individual posts on social media regarding the debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris garnered thousands, and sometimes millions, of likes in the hours after its conclusion. With voters aged 18 to 29 being the most engaged demographic in debate viewership, the transition from cable to mobile media is not a surprise. This age group is least likely to consume news through cable news and most likely to consume it through social media sources.
Debate between presidential candidates has even spilled onto social media platforms itself, namely during the 2016 presidential election. In June of that year, candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton took to X to engage in a very public catfight—Clinton told her opponent to get off of the app, and Trump parried with a quip about her email scandal. This exchange garnered hundreds of thousands of retweets and mirrored some of the famous Clinton-Trump exchanges on the debate stage. Trump continued to use the platform throughout his campaign to attack his political opponents online—that is, until his aides took away control of his account.
Increasing popular participation in debates has become synonymous with dramatic changes in debate substance. As more people have gained access to debate content—and as candidates try to increase their viewership—political discourse has shifted from substance to whatever draws in the biggest crowd. The 2016 presidential debate showdowns, for instance, are remembered for their heated personal invective rather than their policy content. Nevertheless, they were among the most viewed debates ever, showcasing just what kind of debate rakes in the best ratings. The number of personal attacks and interruptions by candidates has skyrocketed in general as pundit opinions of debate content have become noticeably negative.
Although some have groaned at the palpable shift in debate content over the past decades, this change mirrors a positive shift in American political participation. Now, more people than ever have access to American elections and political discourse—especially when compared to the eras of Lincoln and Kennedy—and it has become apparent that the debates play an important role in expanding that access. New forms of interactive media provide voters with a platform to engage in the political discourse they view on their screens. In 2016, over a billion tweets were authored about the election, as voters, pundits, and political figures alike were able to express their own opinions from home. Engaged political participation has not simply stopped at the screen. Following hours of national media coverage of the September 2024 Trump-Harris debate, hype surrounding the election created sizable surges in voter registration.
The modern debate—although tumultuous at times—has created tangible success in encouraging Americans to take part in their democracy. Regardless of their depressing effect on policy lovers, it is the heated debate segments of today that encourage millions of Americans to participate in our political system. While some call for a return to the civil, policy-oriented debates of old, the result would likely stifle the expansion of political discourse to include a wider net of citizens. Debates like the Lincoln-Douglas matchups were not inclusive in nature. Their long-winded speeches were aimed at convincing the political elite in Illinois to appoint them to the Senate, not at educating the average citizen of their time. To return to this type of debate would shroud our election system in political ritual and dissuade thousands of voters from participating in public discourse and elections themselves. The debates of today, however chaotic, are increasingly accessible to every American household—and, in drawing thousands of voters to take part in election season, truly democratic.