To Mute or Not to Mute Trump?

The answer depends on the context. For a debate, mute is the answer

There is not really conventional wisdom for how to deal with Donald Trump, since Trump is in no way conventional. There are just ideas and theories to be tried and tested. And given the chaotic nature of the cultural moment we are in, it’s hard to even know for sure what’s working or not working.

One issue that’s constantly being debated is how the media should handle a presidential candidate like Donald Trump. It’s been obvious for a while that they are failing—or succeeding. It all depends on the context.

In the context of capitalism and profit, the media has been an astounding success. In the context of preserving our country’s traditions and heritage, and maintaining the trust of the public, it is failing.

Within the media context, there is a sub context that is under scrutiny at this very moment: whether or not it’s best for Trump to be muted during a debate, except for his allotted speaking times. Politico reported early this morning that the muted mic dispute is holding up an agreement with the parties regarding the rules of the upcoming debates. CNN then reported that the Trump campaign is signaling they are willing to withdraw from the scheduled debate on Sept. 10 with ABC due to disagreement on this issue.

In the June 28 debate between Trump and Joe Biden, the Biden campaign insisted on some specific rules that the Trump campaign agreed to, one of them being that the mics are muted during the times where the other party is speaking.

Now, in a reversal, the Harris campaign is insisting that the mics be turned on throughout the debate, and Trump’s campaign wants them to remain muted.

The logic is pretty basic. Per the Politico article:

Brian Fallon, the Harris campaign’s senior adviser for communications, tells POLITICO. “Our understanding is that Trump’s handlers prefer the muted microphone because they don’t think their candidate can act presidential for 90 minutes on his own. We suspect Trump’s team has not even told their boss about this dispute because it would be too embarrassing to admit they don’t think he can handle himself against Vice President Harris without the benefit of a mute button.”

Privately, the veep’s team believes that Harris can get Trump to lose his cool and say something impolitic on mic.

The Trump campaign countered with simply an insistence on not changing the rules they agreed to when negotiating with the Biden team. Due to the statement’s lack of an actual argument, this implies that they agree with Fallon, and desperately don’t want Trump to wield a hot mic for the duration of the debate. Trump himself likely would rather have the mic on and be able to speak at will, which would be at odds with his campaign’s stance.

This is the big conundrum with Trump, isn’t it? The more visible and unconstrained he is, the more people see him acting like a non-presidential-seeming buffoon. But his rhetoric is deranged and dangerous, so platforming him potentially can cause mayhem and chaos that challenges many of our institutions. One is about winning the election; one is about preserving our societal fabric.

So what’s the answer? I think it depends on the context. Personally, I think muting is the best approach in a debate format.

It got lost in Joe Biden’s performance and the frenzied analysis during its aftermath, but Trump performed really badly himself at the debate on June 28. In most other realities, he would have been declared the obvious loser by almost all the pundits. But Biden performed even more poorly, at least in the first half, and in such a way that brought the simmering fears about his age and mental acuity to come to a boil that never settled down. This overshadowed how awkward and deranged Trump appeared to be, largely caused by the debate rules that forced him to work within a setting in which he struggles to operate.

Trump didn’t answer the questions he was asked because he kept going back to points make several minutes earlier, not being able to let things go. He lied and made ridiculously exaggerated claims, which resulted in silence. No push back from the mediators means no chaos and little tension between him and the media that his followers love about him and is part of his novelty. I personally loved this debate format and wrote about it at the time. He looked awkward, off his game, and helpless and weak. It’s just that Biden looked worse, especially early on, so Trump seemed relatively competent by comparison.

Because Trump employs stream of consciousness as his main mode of public speaking, he can’t function nearly as well in the frame of allotted speaking times. If he’s allowed to riff aimlessly for as long or short as he wants, he’s in his comfort zone. This is obvious in his rally “speeches” or his “press conferences”. He’s allowed to do and say what he wants however he wants at these events, and he seems comfortable and on his game, even if he comes off like a sleepy, yet deranged, lunatic to most normal people.

But remember that he seemed like a deranged lunatic to most normal people in 2016 and still found a way to win that election. The fact is, he has a large segment of the population mesmerized by his bold crazy way of public speaking. Giving him a third type of format—a debate—where he would be his most comfortable and perform at his best would be a mistake.

Sure, it is tempting to want to see Harris goad him into behaving badly or saying something unseemly. But will that really hurt him?

The worst part of the 2020 debates between Trump and Biden was the utter chaos and constant interrupting. It was ugly and off-putting, and made debate-watching on par with eating peanut butter-covered brussels sprouts. Why would chaos and constant interrupting this time around, but with Harris, be any different? This type of scenario helps Trump. Any time people are grossed out and turned off by the political process, Trump wins. His goal is to make people apathetic by losing respect and hope for politics. The anarchic nature of those debates allowed these negative sentiments to thrive.

On the other hand, put Trump in a closely monitored box with rules, and it takes away one of his biggest strengths, which is causing chaos and apathy through freewheeling. Yes, I think Harris could potentially perform well in this scenario and turn the tables on Trump. She is an experienced prosecutor after all. But there’s also a chance that Trump gives the sound bite of his life, or goads Harris into saying something off-putting herself. Why even take that chance? It’s not worth it, especially for the candidate with all the momentum.

The potential for Trump to succeed is maximized the less he’s constrained. He seems weaker and more pathetic the more he’s constrained. Think about this: in which setting did Trump seem more powerful and in command: during his NY election fraud trial, or at his rallies and press conferences?

And to those that think that unfettered platforming of Trump will be what most assuredly leads to his demise, I say there’s still going to be plenty of that. He will still hold rallies and do speeches, and they’ll be covered more thoroughly the closer we get to the election. If he remains behind in the polls, he’ll probably still do his weird “press conferences”, too, which are nothing more than his rallies without the cheering audience. And don’t forget that he’s now Xeeting on a regular basis again. There’s not going to be a lack of material to work with on this front.

So, unlike Shakespeare’s eternal question on existence, to mute or not to mute Trump can be answered very easily. In a debate, mute.