Trending
Typically, we would be able to say that one debate doesn't hang the entire campaign, but that's when there are four or five debates scheduled.
This year, there are only two - the first we have seen, the second won't be until September. That's because, this year, both presumptive nominees opted not to participate in the debate schedule planned by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
We've all, no doubt, read or listened to the criticisms from that first debate. Trump lied. Biden seemed confused. Daggers have been flying around ever since.
I'm not necessarily a fan of either candidate, if we're being honest, so I often sit here wondering: Are these two really the best our nation has to offer?
That's part of my issue with the two-party system we've basically pushed onto ourselves over the years. I know there are other parties out there, but, realistically, how many of them actually have any kind of chance of being elected to any kind of major office?
West Virginia has the Mountain Party. Some national candidates have wrapped themselves in the banner of the Green Party or the Constitution Party. Then there is the Libertarian Party, which has been growing in some prominance, but still lacks the reach of the two main organizations in most instances.
I don't know if a multi-party system could work in the United States. It doesn't always function in nations where it is in place, although I would hardly call what we have as a truly functional government, either.
Typically, when a sitting president opts to seek re-election, that individual's political party holds no primary debates. There may be a couple of potential candidates stepping forward, but seldom do they get anywhere.
Much of the primary attention is on the other party, where a field of candidates campaign, debate, fundraise and look for any opportunity to get their name out there. This year, there was a series of Republican debates, although Trump didn't take part in any of them. Why bother, I suppose, when the national party has fully been itself behind the former president prior to any other candidates even declaring? He has the power, the name, the money and made his intentions clear back in 2020.
But again, are these two really the best we have, or is it just because that's where the parties have guided us?
I'm not excited about RFK Jr., either, but, again, he really doesn't have much of a chance given the systems which have been put in place over the years.
Keep in mind, political parties weren't officially a thing here when the United States first came into being, and have ebbed and flowed at various points throughout the nation's history. It began through differences of opinion in some of our Founding Fathers but became reality in the 1790s with the formation of the Federalists under Alexander Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans who followed the ideologies of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Even those were unstable, as Jefferson's followers splintered off on their own.
In the years since, philosophies have shifted, new names have been thrown around, many have disappeared after only a relatively short amount of time, but, still, there have been two primary groups of power.
Will that ever change? I don't know. Those who are able to get the money behind them tend to be the ones to hold power, and when we have two such groups firmly implanted into our societal culture, it often makes it difficult for others to rise up to any prominence of their own.
Is there a chance to fix what we have, or is it beyond repair because of what we've allowed?
(Howell, a resident of Colliers, is managing editor of The Weirton Daily Times, and can be contacted at chowell@weirtondailytimes.com or followed on Twitter/X @ChowellWDT)