Is VP Pence Required to Use Plexiglass Barriers in Debates?

The debate surrounding the use of plexiglass barriers for Vice President Pence during the upcoming debate has sparked a mix of opinions reflecting political, health, and ethical concerns. Given the context of the current pandemic, the discussion has largely pivoted around the necessity and ethical use of such barriers, especially in the context of a political event. This article aims to provide a thorough analysis of the debate commission's stance and the broader implications of Pence's involvement in a barrier-free environment.

The Context of the Debate

The debate commission's decision not to mandate the use of plexiglass barriers for Vice President Pence has been a highly debated topic. The commission, known for its role in ensuring fair debates, must navigate the complex landscape of political pressures, public health concerns, and ethical considerations. The inclusion or exclusion of such barriers in a debate setting can have significant implications for both the participants and the audience.

The Case Against Plexiglass Barriers

Proponents of a barrier-free debate argue that such measures are primarily political in nature and should be avoided. They believe that the debate should be focused on the issues at hand, rather than being influenced by safety precautions. However, these views are often criticized for their lack of consideration for public health, particularly given the ongoing pandemic.

Health Concerns

The primary argument against plexiglass barriers is the potential risk of COVID-19 transmission. Pence, as the occupant of the White House, has been in constant contact with individuals who may be infected. The argument is that Pence poses a risk to others if he were to test positive for the virus. The use of plexiglass, proponents claim, would protect both Pence and the audience from potential exposure. Ethically, they argue that denying Pence a barrier is a political statement that undermines public health concerns.

The Commission's Stance

The debate commission's decision hinges on the need to balance political considerations with public health. Their stance is that Pence's decision to use a plexiglass barrier is ultimately his to make. This position is seen by some as a bow to political pressure, as it is known that Pence tested negative for the virus. However, the commission's decision is still a point of contention, reflecting broader ethical and public health debates.

Examples of NY Debate

It's worth noting that during the Democratic and Republican National Conventions in New York, plexiglass barriers were used to prevent the spread of the virus. Pence, like other participants, was present during these events but chose not to use the barriers during the subsequent debate. This decision has been criticized by those who argue that Pence's refusal to use a barrier is a sign of neglecting public health.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate surrounding the use of plexiglass barriers for VP Pence during debates reflects a complicated interplay of political and public health considerations. While the debate commission's stance is seen by some as a strategic move to maintain the integrity of the debate, others argue that it is a capitulation to political pressure that overlooks the potential risks to public health. Ultimately, the ethical and health implications of Pence's actions in the face of a pandemic continue to be a significant point of discussion.

Keywords: Vice President Pence, Plexiglass Barriers, Debate Commission