Congratulations to the Republican National Committee for its unanimous decision to withdraw from the jibe-fests that have been hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates. It’s a salutary first step toward what RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel calls “newer, better debate platforms” — uninfected, we’d add, by bias. That is, it represents an opportunity to restore our presidential parleys to glory.

We’re not saying that the old system was not without its moments. There were highlights, including Reagan’s jibe that he wasn’t going to hold against Walter Mondale his “youth and inexperience,” Ross Perot warning that free trade with Mexico would lead to a “giant sucking sound” of jobs moving south  and Governor Palin excoriating her vice-presidential opponent, Joe Biden, for waving in Iraq the “white flag of surrender.”

For the most part, though, the debates run by the Commission have been dispiriting, petty, asinine, new-age, monkey-with-a-parasol, nickel-plated, incoherent fulminations unworthy of the office for which they are ostensibly testing the candidates. Besides, the CPD has never run primary debates, which have provided some of the most memorable moments in recent political memory.  

This decision, first proposed in January, has already precipitated a panic among the noble comrades. They are treating it as another stratagem in an assault on democracy that is always coming just around the bend. John Harwood, CNN’s White House correspondent, took it as an opportunity to indulge in metaphysics, speculating that it would constitute a “withdrawal from reality.” 

A little history can be the best tonic for panic. The CPD only dates to 1987, which means that it is neither venerable nor indispensable. The most indelible moments in American political history predate it. We elected Washington, Lincoln, “Theodore! With All Thy Faults …” Roosevelt, Silent Cal Coolidge, FDR, Ike, and even the Gipper, Ronald Reagan, without the good offices of the furshlugginer debates commission.

The most legendary debates of all, between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, transpired without a moderator at all. The New York Tribune reported at one debate “twelve thousand people were present” and that the “Dred Scott champion” was “pulverized.” All, somehow, without the CPD’s chaperoning. Other debate moments likewise fail to accrue to the CPD’s ledger, including Nixon’s lack of makeup.

The parleys between JFK and Nixon were actually remarkably civil and substantive. No doubt in part because they took place on a simple set and under rules that allowed each candidate to speak in whole paragraphs of well-reasoned argument. It’s hard to recall a single debate since the presidential commission got started that rose to the example that JFK and RN set in 1960. They are still inspiring today.

If history suggests that the debate commission is hardly indispensable, more recent events underline that it is not adhering to its stated mission to be guided by “fairness, neutrality and a firm commitment to help the American public learn about the candidates and the issues.” There are reasons to doubt whether it would do so in what is sure to be the maelstrom of the 2024 election.  

The past does not inspire confidence. The first debate in 2020 was held on September 24, after more than a million early ballots had already been cast. If the purpose of a debate is to clarify a choice, it is malpractice to hold it after so many have already made theirs. In 2016, one of the commissioners had served in the Clinton White House, awkward given that President Trump was running against Senator Clinton.   

Senator Romney, perhaps sensing the fingerprints of his GOP foe Mr. Trump behind this announcement, provided ammunition to its critics by observing that it would be “nuts” for the GOP candidate to boycott the debates. This is especially odd given that his 2012 debate against President Obama is cited as one where the CPD’s umpires thought that they were players, and not for Mr. Romney’s team.  

“Debate” comes from the Latin “to fight.” Political brawling is how we choose winners and losers in the public square. We have no interest in dimming the fire and brimstone, and we look forward to lively, even impassioned debates. Let’s not pretend, though, that the way we have been doing things works particularly well, or at all. There were too many performances that deserved tomatoes and banana peels rather than garlands.