Inflamed Passions, Itching Ears, and Other Pitfalls to Avoid While Watching Presidential Debates

As the 2024 election approaches, so too does our inexorable march toward presidential debates. And while the year’s first debate today takes place far earlier in the calendar than normal, this is far from a normal election.

Joe Biden, already the oldest president in American history, is facing criticism and questions about his readiness to lead and mental acuity. Donald Trump, also advanced in age, continues to spread unfounded accusations of electoral malfeasance in 2020 and, depending on the outcome, in 2024.

God’s people are called to love their neighbors and “seek the welfare of the city” (Jer. 29:7). One way we do this is to be informed and engaged in the contemporary political process. This means researching candidates for office, considering the ways our voting affects not just ourselves and our families but also our neighbors and fellow citizens, and, yes, at times tuning in to debates between candidates.

At their best, political debates highlight differences between candidates and give voters a clear choice when they cast their votes. Debates provide platforms for candidates to share not just specific policy proposals but also a broader vision for their community, state, and nation. This is consistent with the political science idea of “responsible party government,” in which political parties articulate an agenda that voters can reasonably expect from them should they win an election. Debates, in theory, afford candidates the same opportunities.

Unfortunately, debates usually fail to reach these goals. Instead of providing people with rich and substantive information to aid their inevitable voting, debates tend to devolve into scripted soundbites, attempts at “gotcha” moments, and unhelpful back-and-forth exchanges aimed at tearing down opponents. Rather than offering a positive vision of governance, debates too often yield the worst of our political impulses and a limited, weakened understanding of what politics ought to be.

These dynamics, combined with a historically polarized electorate and the dynamics of yet another Biden-Trump showdown, could mean this year’s debates will be even less fruitful than normal. People who are most excited about debates tend to be the most politically attentive, meaning they have probably made up their minds going into a given debate. Not much could happen that could convince them to alter their evaluations of the candidates, particularly in an election like this one where the candidates have been in the public eye for decades. Political junkies see debates, warts and all, as vehicles for reinforcing the positives of their preferred candidate and the negatives of the opposition.

Others who are exhausted by the political day-to-day may be unlikely to tune in at all. Why would somebody turned off by the normal ebb and flow of politics and partisanship willingly spend a couple of hours experiencing the extremes of today’s political environment? Just as folks who relish every moment of these debates are unlikely to change their minds because of what is said, those who don’t watch for a second will not either.

So do debates matter? Perhaps. Research shows that a very small group of people—around 1 in 10, it seems—goes into an election season sincerely questioning how they will vote, including for president.

Given that big elections are often decided by small margins in key states, a swing of a few percent here or there could be the difference. Seen in this light, the moments we will remember from this year’s debates might affect how things shake out in November after all.

So what are we to do as we approach yet another season of political debates? Should we tune out entirely, rejecting the essence of these debates as sowing conflict and division in our relationships and communities? Should we begrudgingly pay attention, staying informed while maintaining a disengaged posture toward the process? Should we enthusiastically tune in, consuming all we can about the debates and lending our comments and evaluations to social media and our neighbors?

One can be a faithful Christian and tune out from what amounts to spectacle and political theater. At the same time, enjoying these spectacles is not indicative of a weak or immature faith. What matters is the posture and perspective we bring with us in this arena. Just as Paul clarified that eating meat offered to idols was a potential stumbling block for some yet not inherently sinful, so too could a political debate be a source of difficulty for some Christians but not others.

With this in mind, here are three suggestions for approaching the debates with a renewed mind (Rom. 12:2):

Know your tendencies and plan accordingly.

For those who tend to approach politics in a combative way, seeking to win above all else, practice watching these debates with an emphasis on humility and a willingness to learn from perceived opponents. For those who tend to approach politics cynically, considering the political world to be hopelessly corrupted, it might help to watch these debates with an eye toward how our fallen politics can be an avenue for loving our neighbors.

Prioritize positivity.

Some of us may have a preferred candidate going into these debates and believe that the other candidate is hopelessly lost in terms of his goals for government. But this does not require negativity or hostility toward the opposition. In watching these debates, try to identify something positive from the candidate you oppose—or, if you’re a “pox on both their houses” person, look for positive takeaways from both candidates. Neither Biden nor Trump is the personification of evil; each is a fallen person who is made in God’s image. We should treat them as such.

Practice discernment and seek truth.

Most citizens shouldn’t have to carry the burden of fact-checking the hundreds of claims coming out of these debates. But you can practice healthy skepticism in the spirit of biblical discernment when reading others’ treatments of the debates. Did Joe Biden really seem to be wearing an earpiece feeding him answers? Did Donald Trump really seem to be on stimulants or other drugs to boost his energy?

Activists will often spread falsehoods to build or fit narratives. Christians should take claims such as these—particularly those seemingly designed to inflame partisan passions and appeal to “itching ears” (2 Tim. 4:3)—with a grain of salt.

Ultimately, as we set out on what will likely be an arduous season of political contests and debates, we should prepare ourselves in the same way we ought to live in our fallen world: with the mind of Christ, embodying a spirit of discernment, graciousness, and love that can only come from him.

Daniel Bennett is an associate professor of political science at John Brown University and assistant director at the Center for Faith and Flourishing. He is the author of Uneasy Citizenship: Embracing the Tension in Faith and Politics.