When the Neutral Democratic Institutions Aren’t

Prominent Democrats (or, possibly, former Democrats) Mark Penn and Andrew Stein make some observations worth considering in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

Think back to the Trump-Biden debate in June, in which the CNN moderators exemplified fairness. Had they had spent time correcting Mr. Trump while letting his opponent off the hook, as ABC did, the result might not have been as lopsided, and Joe Biden might still be the nominee. But CNN did its job fairly, and the public got a meaningful read on the two candidates.

When referees put their thumbs on the scale, the game changes. The results have to be thrown out, we are robbed of our time, and democracy is drained of its meaning. A presidential debate shouldn’t be a staged wrestling match. It should feature two candidates on a level playing field so voters can make up their minds free of interference. Anything less makes a mockery of our institutions. ABC should have fact-checked both candidates or neither. Fact-checking only one was the worst possible decision. Even a Democrat can tell a whopper.

Time and again we find that supposedly neutral democratic institutions have been corrupted by bias. Debate moderators must check their biases and seek to be scrupulously fair, or they shouldn’t do the job. They should observe strict rules and come from a variety of networks. Most important, they shouldn’t interfere but rather trust voters to make their own decisions. ABC undermined the system for everyone.

I will post on this a little later but don’t be surprised if Tuesday’s debate was not just the last one of this campaign cycle but the last presidential debate broadcast by a major network full stop.