The squabbling between U.S. Senate candidates John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz over their debates has grabbed headlines, but Josh Shapiro and Doug Mastriano’s debate over debates serves Pennsylvanians just as badly. They must find a mutually agreeable solution.
The governor’s race pits two candidates with widely divergent views — and campaign styles — against one another. Rather than having to evaluate them through their ubiquitous television and internet ads, voters need to see the two of them on stage discussing their visions for Pennsylvania. Together, the two men can show that it’s possible to have a respectful and fruitful conversation across our widening political divide.
As it stands, each candidate wants the kind of debate that fits the campaign he’s running. Mr. Shapiro is running a traditional campaign, including regular conversations with the media, and expects traditional debates — that is, moderated by respected journalists affiliated with local media outlets.
Mr. Mastriano is running a new kind of campaign, rebuffing all but conservative media. He accepts no traditional debate moderator as truly independent. He sees all legacy media as implacably hostile to him.
Mr. Mastriano’s novel solution is to have a pair of debates, one with a moderator of each campaign’s choosing. The idea is that fairness is only possible if each candidate has to face one hostile and one friendly moderator. To that end, Mr. Mastriano has reserved a venue and booked a moderator for Oct. 22. His chosen questioner is Mercedes Schlapp, a former Trump administration official who clearly supports Mr. Mastriano’s politics more than Mr. Shapiro’s.
Mr. Shapiro’s campaign dismissed this gambit as a “stunt.” While booking a venue and host without his opponent’s agreement certainly qualifies as gamesmanship, the proposal shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. It has virtues that the usual system lacks, most importantly ensuring that voters across the political spectrum feel represented by the moderators.
Both campaigns must set aside their insistence on a particular format and seek a mutually agreeable third option. A town hall-style debate, with questions from ordinary voters, chosen by a lottery, should satisfy both sides’ concerns. So would a debate staged as a conversation, with minimal interventions from the moderator, or a more traditional podium-style debate with a variety of ideologically diverse questioners.
These are all perfectly legitimate options — if the candidates truly want to debate. Any of them and other possibilities would work, as long as Pennsylvania voters get a chance to see the men vying for the governor’s mansion discuss the issues. The candidates choosing to let political calculations get in the way of honest discourse, as they’ve done so far, further erodes trust in institutions and the nation’s democratic system.
By compromise, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Mastriano can strengthen our democratic institutions and reduce political polarization, and do something important for Pennsylvania, even before one of them takes the reins of the commonwealth.
First Published: September 23, 2022, 4:39 p.m.