Voters need straight answers in presidential debate

This national election’s one and only scheduled presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, hosted by ABC News, is due to begin at 9 p.m. Tuesday and last for 90 minutes.

You should watch.

All campaigns are different, and so are all debates. But this faceoff at the National Constitution Center, a private nonprofit education center in Philadelphia that celebrates the blueprint of our democratic republic, will be unique because of what led up to it.

The previous debate, between Trump and President Joe Biden on June 27, became like no other in its opening minutes when the 81-year-old incumbent fell into verbal dysfunction. Biden’s alarming display of frailty that night set in motion the Democratic Party’s post-primary embrace of Harris to replace him. Trump now redirects his asymmetrical, loose-cannon style toward a less-defined nominee who hopes to sound convincingly fresh and positive and presidential while making the case against her GOP foe.

Moderators of these forums always face a challenge garnering straightforward and specific answers from candidates. That could prove especially true Tuesday. To make the contenders as accountable as possible, the questioners need to explore their records in office.

EXPLANATIONS NEEDED

Trump should be called on to explain his chaotic four-year term and his disloyal, reprehensible conduct after his 2020 defeat. He has never been known to engage facts or truth either on offense or on defense. Fast fact-checking and following up questions in real time are always challenging, regardless of the candidates.

Looking past his multiple ongoing prosecutions, Trump could, if he wishes, say honestly why he’s refused to return classified documents to the government he plans to lead again, why he did nothing to quell the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, and who told him COVID-19 would just fade away in the summer of 2020. And what parts of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 agenda for conservatives would he accept or reject?

An earnest push for truthful answers from both Trump and Harris might be worth the viewers’ time no matter how elusive the candidates' responses may be.

For Harris, the tricky part could come in trying to parse how she would or would not be Biden 2.0. Surely, she will claim credit for successes, but she also should answer for Biden’s inadequate response to the migrant influx, respond to criticism of the administration’s foreign-war policies, and tell the public her plans for tariffs, consumer prices and the deficit, and how they differ from Trump’s.

On what issues are the candidates shifting and why? Surfacing that would call for sharp, detached questioning. Both need to be held to one standard.

Governance aside, those in the TV audience who haven’t decided whether or how to vote will be watching to get a sense of which candidate they can bear hearing from over the next four years. Especially in contested swing states, people will want to decide for themselves who’s the uniter and who’s the divider, who seeks to lead the whole country, who will be fair to different or opposing constituencies, and who will keep their promises.

That's the reason to watch the entire event — and not simply rely on favored news channels or social media snippets that highlight selective clips and trumpet meaningless instant polls. Seeing the body language and hearing the sentences for yourself is better than relying on caricatures shaped by opponents.

NEW AGE ISSUE

When Biden was in the race, age became a justifiable issue. Now, with a 59-year-old candidate carrying the banner, Democrats are trying to turn the tables, citing the 78-year-old Trump's rambling, unclear and seemingly unfiltered style. How much of that marks a change from four and eight years ago is a question for the people to judge. It is fair to say that basic self-control has always been an issue for Trump, and whether he can exercise it for 90 televised minutes is a matter of suspense. How he indulges his many hostilities will make a difference no matter what Harris does.

In the run-up to the debate, Trump was given his way on a key rule change, regarding microphones. The Harris camp wanted them kept on through the full event, which is the usual practice. Trump’s team did not want that. Harris & Co. said they wished to show why his handlers didn’t want to trust their candidate. The matter was decided in favor of muting the mic when it’s the other person’s turn to speak. With that resolved, Trump has no cause to complain about the rules or disrespect the hosts, which experience shows is not beyond him.

The show may or may not be entertaining, but it is more important for the nation that it be informative and therefore critical viewing for all voters.