The Bannon-Frum Munk Debate: What Really Happened

As a debater, Bannon has turned out to be engaging and entertaining. When one of his lines was applauded by only one member of the audience, Bannon joked, "Thank you Mom." That lit up the room.

But the longer Bannon spoke, the more empty the populist program was. He could observe and exploit the failures of the past 15 years. In 2016, Trump promised to provide better health insurance to all Americans at a lower cost to both individuals and the government. This promise has been dishonored. When asked to explain why, Bannon could only point Paul Ryan and say, "his fault". Ditto for Trump's failure to deliver on his promise to lower taxes for middle-income people by increasing them on the financial sector. Ditto for broken promises to build infrastructure and save lives from opioid addiction. Ditto for the fact that illegal immigration and trade deficits increase under Trump, despite his emphatic promises to reduce both.

Populists have identified real concerns, but their responses are a fraud and a scam. The failures of a fundamentally good system do not justify overthrowing it and replacing it with something bad.

So I quarreled, and while I was talking, I thought I took the room with me. But the room had a trick in his bag.

Like many public debate series, the Munk debate measures the results by gathering support and opposition to the motion at the beginning of the evening and then at the end. The winner is the side that moves the piece the most. I've already participated in a debate at the IQ Squared Series in London. At the beginning of the evening, 80% thought my side was wrong. In the end, 60% thought my side was wrong. My side won the evening even though, of course, the room has always rejected our point of view.

During the November 2 debate, the Munk series introduced e-voting for the first time instead of paper ballots. The new devices promised a quicker and safer count.

In the early evening, the 2800-seat hall voted against the resolution – that is, for the Liberal party rather than for the populist party – at a margin of 72 to 28 percent. The numbers flashed on big screens above the stage.

Taking advantage of the fast firing capability of the new technology, moderators then asked a complementary question: are you willing to change your mind? The audience said it was between 57 and 43%. The numbers flashed again on the screen.

Ninety minutes later, after the last exchanges, the room voted again. And the result was staggering: Bannon had triumphed, crushing my part of the arguments, 57-43.

The room is breathless. As one participant told me later, people were looking at their neighbors with surprise and fear. Bannon smiles in triumph. We shook hands, I congratulated him for his surprise victory: "Just like in 2016," I said. Internally, however, I felt dismayed. The room had not applauded or laughed more approvingly at the end of Bannon's presentation than at the beginning. He had not worn his listeners. By a horrible fault on my part, I lost them.