By Stephen J. Farnsworth, ADVANCE CONTRIBUTOR
U.S. Rep. Eugene Vindman (D), the Fredericksburg area’s member of Congress, is making a mistake by refusing to join what is usually the Seventh Congressional district’s highest visibility debate—the September candidate event held at the University of Mary Washington.
In contrast, three rivals to Vindman—one Republican, one Libertarian, and one independent—have committed to take the stage on September 15. They will be sure to note his absence. Failing to attend a debate gives ammunition to rival candidates and more importantly also deprives voters of a chance to evaluate candidates away from the attack ads, sound bites and social media mayhem that dominate political discourse these days.
More on those matters in a moment. First a personal disclosure. During more than a quarter century as a Mary Washington professor before my retirement this summer, I have moderated dozens of debates held at the UMW or elsewhere in northern Virginia for federal, state and local offices. Over the years, I have always been impressed by willingness of nearly every candidate who qualified for the ballot to participate in these vital albeit sometimes-challenging events. I have no part in this month’s debate at UMW or in any other candidate debates this election cycle and therefore feel freer to criticize candidate non-participation than I have in the past.
Over the years, I have observed that candidates who have refused to participate in debates at Mary Washington—which in most years are joint efforts involving the UMW Student Government Association, the area Chamber of Commerce, the area League of Women Voters, and the Free-Lance Star—rarely participate in any other general elections debates. We will see if that pattern holds for this year.
The last congressional candidate to refuse to debate a major party rival at UMW was Prince William County Supervisor Yesli Vega, the 2022 Republican nominee. Vega lost to Abigail Spanberger by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin. Vindman, who participated in the 2024 debate at UMW, was elected by a 51 percent to 49 percent margin two years ago.
So why should a candidate participate? First, being part of a high visibility debate is a key part of playing defense as a candidate. When you say no, you are handing your opponents a very valuable weapon. A candidate’s non-appearance, particularly when the other major and minor party candidates have agreed to participate, can be a key topic of campaign messaging for weeks. It is wise to try to limit the number of reasons people might vote against you, and an unwillingness to debate at a top-tier event does not enhance voter assessments of an absent candidate. This lesson seems particularly important in a closely divided district like Virginia’s Seventh.
More importantly, persuadable voters who are not automatically committed to one party or the other need face-to-face policy conversations about leading issues, which usually take place in a professional debate format. Candidate meetings with party loyalists and online town halls are no substitute for these events.
Our modern campaign environment is rife with falsehoods and distractions and often provides too little policy content. Attack ads on television and in the mail have long played fast and loose with facts, but they are nothing compared to the absurd social media narratives that may come from anonymous posters employing AI, partisan disinformation, or support from foreign adversaries.
The policy-rich conversations of debates provide an antidote to the downward trajectory of public discourse around elections—a development that is doubly discouraging when one considers the increasingly limited resources that news organizations can devote to identifying falsehoods for their readers and viewers.
Vindman, of course, is not alone in making this choice. Across the country, many candidates of both parties are seeking to avoid debates, town halls and other unscripted public events that put themselves before the voters in ways that the campaigns cannot control. We as citizens are poorer for this national trend.
There is still time to fix this for the voters of Virginia’s Seventh – perhaps another candidate debate can be arranged. But there isn’t much time. Early voting starts September 18, just a few days after the currently scheduled debate at Mary Washington.
***
Dr. Steve Farnsworth retired this summer from the University of Mary Washington after teaching political science there and at other universities for more than 30 years. He is the author or coauthor of nine books and dozens of research articles on U.S. and Virginia politics. His website is stephenfarnsworth.net.
It’s lame of Vindman to sit out the debate. But it won’t make a difference in this race.