Should the presidential debate remain televised? America is tired of unproductive rants.

A presidential campaign with several strange, even unprecedented, developments now has the added oddity of a standoff over candidate debates — and it’s backward.

It’s supposed to be the underdog, or at least the challenger in second place, who clamors to go one-on-one in an epic clash of issues and answers. And it’s normally the frontrunner who disdains a noisy challenger like a horse might swat its tail at a horse fly.

Although it’s close, poll after poll indicates President Joe Biden is trailing ex-President Donald Trump. But it’s Trump who’s insisting the American people have a right to see televised debates — and Biden who says yeah, well, maybe, maybe not.

There must be something in each candidate’s campaign research to explain their positions.

Despite his lead in polling, Trump’s people could see vulnerabilities if he gets on a stage with a panel of questioners asking about Stormy Daniels or the Capitol rioting of Jan. 6 or why so many of his former top allies — even his vice president — are now warning us not to return him to the White House. The bombastic personal style, the name-calling and claims of personal persecution all sell well at big MAGA rallies but could come across as crude and bullying in the dignified setting of a debate stage.

Of course, crude bullying is what a lot of Trump’s audiences like about him.

And despite all the news-making advantages of incumbency, the aura of the presidency itself, Biden’s handlers are probably worried that he’ll look old and unsteady — or, worse, make some gaffe that reminds everybody of what they don’t like about him. With a nationwide audience watching a deep discussion of Ukraine, inflation and immigration, they don’t want the octogenarian chief executive fumbling for words or confusing the president of Mexico with the head guy in Egypt — again.

The National Commission on Presidential Debates has penciled in four Trump-Biden matchups between Sept. 16 and Oct. 9. A dozen news organizations, including the major networks, released a joint letter to both candidates last week, urging them to debate.

“If there is one thing Americans can agree on during this polarized time, it is that the stakes of this election are exceptionally high,” their statement said. “Amidst that backdrop, there is simply no substitute for the candidates debating with each other, and before the American people, their visions for the future of our nation.”

Really? Are there many people who don’t already have fixed impressions of Donald Trump and Joe Biden? If you’re still undecided by the fall, how likely is it that you’ll vote, anyway?

Rather than informing the public on important issues, it’s reasonable to assume the networks and major publishers are more interested in audience attention. There’s nothing wrong with that; they’re in business and want to peddle their product — news — to as many people as possible.

A Trump-Biden showdown would be like the famous “battle of the sexes” 50 years ago, when the self-promoting Bobby Riggs taunted his way into a televised tennis match with Billie Jean King. It meant nothing, but drew a big audience.

And there’s “simply no substitute” for debates? Somehow, we got along without them from Kennedy-Nixon in 1960 until Carter-Ford in 1976. And what does anyone remember, mostly, about debates? Not information but appearances.

There was Nixon’s darting eyes and sweaty brow vs. Kennedy’s casual sophistication, Ford’s remark that the Soviets did not dominate Eastern Europe (he meant to say Poland did not accept Kremlin control), and George H.W. Bush looking at his watch impatiently while Bill Clinton spoke. And of course, we had Reagan’s “There you go again” jibe at Carter.

Debate coaches actually arm their clients with zingers, and try to anticipate what might be coming from the other side. And everyone uses debating, or refusing to debate, as a tactic — which is why Trump denied all his GOP primary opponents equal footing this year.

It would be good for the country if Biden and Trump could seriously discuss the future of Social Security and Medicare, climate change and immigration policy. Without calling names or distorting each other’s records, voters deserve to have them tell us about foreign policy and their economic plans.

That would be a real debate, rather than the forensic version of pro wrestling. And three-quarters of the audience would change channels before they got 20 minutes into it.

Bill Cotterell is a retired capitol reporter for United Press International and the Tallahassee Democrat. He can be reached at wrcott43@aol.com. 

This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: A rewarding presidential debate between Trump and Biden is uncertain.