Final Presidential Debate: Chris Wallace Helps Equalize Trump and Clinton — Admirable but Unhelpful in 2016

Last month — nearly two weeks before the first presidential debate, so, a lifetime ago — the New Yorker’s Amy Davidson observed that the types of questions that swirled around Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton were just not comparable to those Republican nominee Donald Trump was facing. “Clinton’s flaws aren’t just smaller than Trump’s, they are not on the same scale. It’s as if the American Presidency might suffer the same fate as the NASA orbiter that was lost because someone mixed up metric and non-metric measurements.” Of course, Davidson concludes, Clinton’s shortcomings should be explored rigorously. “But there’s something to be said for a high standard all around.”

I was reminded of that column last night, during the final presidential debate in Las Vegas, where Fox News anchor Chris Wallace guided discussion between Clinton and Trump for their last formal joint appearance before the election. In most respects, Wallace was a very strong moderator. He was able to elicit the most close, clear answers from Trump, and found chinks in Clinton’s armor of rhetoric. And thanks to Wallace’s dogged questioning on a line of questioning that is, as he put it, “one of the prides of this country … the peaceful transition of power,” the lead story for every news organization covering the campaign is that the GOP candidate will not commit to accepting the results of the election. Clinton’s response was to observe that this mindset was “horrifying.” Trump took the opportunity of her critique that he always blames a rigged system to once again state that “The Apprentice” deserved the outstanding reality-competition program Emmy in 2004 and 2005. The audience laughed, and even Clinton cracked a smile. But then she observed what is possibly the most succinct takedown of Trump in this election: “It’s funny, but it’s also really troubling.”

Wallace, who along with colleagues Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly moderated three Republican primary debates, told colleague Howard Kurtz before last night’s debate that he intended to not fact-check the debate in real time. This was in direct opposition to not only the last few presidential moderators — Lester Holt, Martha Raddatz, and Anderson Cooper, who all chose to rebut the candidates with reported material — but also Wallace’s own methods at the Republican debates, where, in March, he presented Trump with graphs depicting the flaws in the candidate’s economic policy. That being said, Wallace is well-liked by politicians on both sides the aisle for being tough but fair, and the anchor demonstrated last night a deep faith in the voters’ ability to interpret presented information themselves.

The problem is, this approach is one that Trump has exploited, to great effect, throughout his entire candidacy. To use an obvious example, Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, has said several times that the Trump candidacy forced the paper to learn how to call out untruths. “I think he made us — forced us, because he does it so often, to get comfortable with saying something is false,” he told NiemanLab earlier this month. And up until right before the debates — when Davidson wrote her column — Trump had the strongest showing in poll numbers since the Republican National Convention. The diffuse talking points and rapid news cycle of modern media, coupled with Trump’s devastating skill at making obsessively watchable television, made a climate in which his narrative was particularly successful.

Last night’s debate exhibited both the strengths and weaknesses of Wallace’s restrained approach. On one hand, both candidates were forced to talk on topics they didn’t really want to talk about. Wallace’s phrasing of the question about past sexual assault allegations against Trump gave him absolutely no room to maneuver, which was the point, and in asking about her paid speeches to Wall Street banks, Wallace pinned Clinton to one of her most uncomfortable legacies and wouldn’t budge. For Trump, a compulsive tweeter, many of these remarks on uncomfortable subjects were recognizable. From Clinton, however — a far more reserved public figure, whose image constantly reads as managed and studied — her statements, messy as they sometimes where, provided some of the most heartfelt responses from her, such as her articulate, emotional statement of purpose on abortion.

On the other hand, Wallace’s questions had the effect of equalizing the two candidates, a journalistic tic that is admirable but unhelpful in 2016. Trump’s mendacious statements going unchallenged did not help anyone except Trump himself, and Clinton, who had the unenviable task of trying to defend herself while also fact-checking a demagogue, was frequently too busy juggling her own complicated spin to address his. Wallace, who as a Fox News anchor is familiar with the long tradition of demonizing the Clintons, also came down harder on Clinton — understandable for the most conservative moderator, but frustrating for anyone with a passing relationship with the truth. While Trump’s assertion that he was pro-life went by without a hitch, Wallace asked Clinton to justify her position on partial-birth abortion — a buzzy topic from two decades ago if there ever was one. Later, Clinton was asked to address a paragraph from hacked emails, which forced her to both address that the hack originated in Russia and that the quote was taken out of context. Trump, who insisted he did not know Russian president Vladimir Putin, wasn’t even directly asked about his relationship to Russia, instead getting the softball question, which he could barely answer, of whether or not he would “condemn” the hacks.

Indeed, Wallace’s approach towards moderating pointed back to a bygone, halcyon era — the ‘90s — where hand-wringing over the national debt and pillorying the Clintons were de rigueur. The moderator asked about American intervention abroad, “entitlements,” and GDP growth, engaging with a very classic set of conservative viewpoints with deep roots in the political consciousness. (It was expected that Clinton would find it harder to navigate these concerns, but it was comical how much Trump struggled to get through the talking points of his own party.) Meanwhile, pressing and (more) emergent issues such as climate change, police brutality, LGBTQ rights, and mass incarceration never made it onto the table. With Clinton’s current lead in the polls, perhaps the reason this debate skewed conservative is because conservative voters are the ones currently most likely to be on the fence between Trump, a very different kind of Republican, and Clinton, a very moderate Democrat.

Either way, it’s a strangely retro capper to this highly unorthodox and very of-our-time election. With lopsided standards and conservative leanings, Trump performed as well as he ever has, while Clinton was put on the defensive against the moderator for the first time in these three debates. Wallace, switching between the two, seemed wistful for a GOP that would not have allowed either of these candidates to their podiums. But although it is difficult to fault Wallace for his decorum and grace under pressure, his methods and concerns did not seem wholly appropriate for this day and age of upside-down politicking, where the GOP nominee routinely responds to the Democrat’s critiques with a variation of the playground taunt — I know you are, but what am I?

Related stories

Another Woman Accuses Donald Trump of Groping Her

How Donald Trump Became the Clear Choice for Cheap Entertainment (Guest Column)

Ratings for Third Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton Debate Up From Round 2

Get more from Variety and Variety411: Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Newsletter