Joseph Sabino Mistick: Pa. voters deserve to see debates

As the shortest kid in my fourth grade class, I played the 5-foot-4 Stephen Douglas in our school production of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, and my tallest classmate played the 6-foot-4 Abraham Lincoln. It was the 100th anniversary of the 1858 debates.

Our school had no auditions for these nonspeaking roles, the accident of height being the only qualifier, but I took comfort in knowing that Douglas was called “The Little Giant.” Later, when I learned about his repugnant pro-slavery ideas, the memory of my childhood role turned sour.

But the original purpose of debates, center stage again in the races for U.S. senator and Pennsylvania governor, has not changed since Lincoln and Douglas met seven times across Illinois. In those days, state legislatures picked U.S. senators. Nevertheless, these candidates debated in open fields and town squares before thousands of citizens, and news of each meeting was telegraphed across the land.

Seeing our future leaders in unscripted moments is important. Everything else we get these days — television ads, mailers, press releases, social media — is carefully crafted by political stylists. None of these things can replace the chance for people to look directly at a candidate and decide whether they agree with them, whether they are trustworthy and whether they like them — to decide for themselves if the candidates are prepared and genuine.

In our country, presidential debates still draw the biggest audiences. The first televised Kennedy-­Nixon debate in 1960 drew an estimated 74 million viewers. Both candidates were articulate and fully informed, and their differences gave voters a real choice.

There were three presidential debates in 1992 between Republican President George H.W. Bush, Democrat Bill Clinton and independent Ross Perot. It was clear that they all understood the issues but had strong policy differences.

In both 1960 and 1992, we also learned that appearances count for something.

Nixon looked haggard with a five-o’clock shadow and a sweaty upper lip made him appear rattled under pressure. And near the end of the second 1992 debate, President Bush glanced at his wristwatch, as though he had something better to do, which he said cost him some votes.

Still, those were serious debates. But as we are seeing in Pennsylvania, proposals for debates can become infused with campaign tactics.

Republican Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz, running behind in most polls, has challenged Democratic Lt. Gov. John Fetterman to five debates and possibly more, hoping to force an error by Fetterman, who has just returned to campaigning after a stroke. Fetterman will want fewer debates, and his camp has said that he will not debate Oz on Oz’s terms.

In the race for governor, Republican candidate state Sen. Doug Mastriano proposed two debates, but only on his terms, which are designed to keep the traditional media out. Under Mastriano’s unique proposal, each campaign would name a moderator, and the moderators would alternate questions. Democratic Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s campaign called Mastriano’s proposal “unserious” and an “obvious stunt.”

Who wouldn’t settle for a couple of debates in each of these races with the candidates answering hard questions with no restrictions or dictated terms by any candidate — just an old-fashioned debate, the kind that the voters deserve.