In advance of rehearsals for debate the dramaturgy team Maren Robinson, Katherine Shuert, Omari Sloan, Ashly Demay (DT) sat down with director Christopher McElroen (CM) to ask some questions about Debate: Baldwin vs. Buckley.
Dramaturgy Team: The debate between Baldwin and Buckley marks its 60th anniversary this year. What drew you to the debate and drove you to see it on stage? And why do you think America is still engaging in this debate 60 years later?
Christopher McElroen: Eric, Teagle, and I began working on this material in the summer of 2020, in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and during the heated 2020 election cycle. It felt crucial to contribute to the national conversation through our art, and this historic debate between Baldwin and Buckley seemed like the perfect vehicle to do so.
As for why America continues to engage with this debate after all these years, perhaps it is because the country’s founding ideals demand constant pursuit and ongoing questioning. These ideals set an extraordinarily high bar, one that may never be fully cleared, but the journey toward progress depends on our willingness to examine and challenge ourselves. This debate remains profoundly relevant, as it encapsulates that struggle and serves as a guiding reminder of the work still needed to fulfill America’s promise—to all its citizens.
DT: Does it feel different working on a piece of theater where the characters are not only real people, but famous people who are often quoted on the political left and right?
CM: From the outset, we made a deliberate choice not to directly play Baldwin or Buckley, but to let their words resonate through the voices of contemporary artists. This decision allowed us to step away from impersonation and instead focus on the power and universality of their arguments. By emphasizing the words over the personas, the debate becomes less about Baldwin and Buckley as individuals and more about the ideas they represent, which continue to resonate across political divides.
This approach has proven remarkably effective, particularly given the way both men are often quoted and claimed by different sides of the political spectrum. Their arguments remain touchstones for discussions on race, democracy, and progress, and reframing them through contemporary voices allows audiences to engage with the material in a fresh, immediate, and thought-provoking way.
The result is a piece of theater that honors their legacy while sparking new conversations about the issues that continue to shape our society.
DT: You have staged Debate: Baldwin vs. Buckley in the United Kingdom and several locations across the United States. Do audiences respond to the play in different ways in different regions, and does it feel different in America?
CM: Wherever we have performed Debate: Baldwin vs. Buckley—whether in New York; London; Charleston, S.C.; or Chattanooga, Tenn.—we’ve consistently encountered a diversity of political opinions. What has surprised me most, and what I believe is a testament to the style of debate the piece engages in, is the civility of the conversations that follow. Regardless of the region, audiences have approached the work with a willingness to hold space for differing points of view, engaging in thoughtful dialogue rather than heated argument.
This response feels particularly striking in America, where polarization often dominates public discourse. The piece’s ability to foster civil and meaningful exchanges speaks to the enduring relevance of Baldwin and Buckley’s debate and the respect their words command. It’s a reminder that, even amidst deep divisions, there is still room for dialogue and understanding—a hope that we’ve seen resonate powerfully with audiences everywhere.
DT: Have audience responses changed since the recent U.S. presidential election?
CM: I’ll be able to answer that more fully once we open. Chicago will be the first place we perform the work post-election, and I’m eager to see how audiences engage with it in light of the election results.
DT: There is a real connection between your interests in fostering conversation and asking audiences to engage in messy questions, and TimeLine’s mission to produce historical pieces that speak to today’s cultural and political issues. Could you speak more about what you think the role of the artist is in the public sphere?
CM: I believe the role of the artist in the public sphere is not to posture as if we have solutions to society’s challenges, but to create a space where people can gather, engage in dialogue, and truly listen to one another. ‘
Art has the unique ability to hold up a mirror to the complexities and contradictions of our world, inviting audiences to wrestle with messy questions without the pressure of finding definitive answers. This aligns closely with TimeLine’s mission as I understand it. Their work seeks to foster meaningful conversations that challenge assumptions and encourage reflection. By presenting nuanced and thought-provoking material, we can create opportunities for connection and understanding, even when perspectives differ.
In a time when public discourse often feels fractured, the artist’s role in cultivating these spaces is more vital than ever.
DT: In working on the production, we were struck by how civil and eloquent the debate is in comparison with many recent political debates. Do you think that civil debate is still possible in American politics, or is what we see now even debate?
CM: For my money, we no longer truly debate in American political discourse. A genuine debate requires presenting an intellectual argument, supported by factual information, to persuade an audience that your vision for the future is the correct one for this moment. What we often see today falls far short of that standard.
Long before our current president arrived on the scene, American politics had already shifted toward a cult of personality—a popularity contest where the goal is simply for your “contestant” to win. This shift has eroded the space for thoughtful, fact-based exchanges of ideas, replacing it with soundbites and spectacle. The kind of civil and eloquent debate we explored in Baldwin vs. Buckley feels like a relic of another time, yet it serves as a vital reminder of what’s possible when we prioritize reasoned dialogue over rhetoric.
What has surprised me most, and what I believe is a testament to the style of debate the piece engages in, is the civility of the conversations that follow. Regardless of the region, audiences have approached the work with a willingness to hold space for differing points of view, engaging in thoughtful dialogue rather than heated argument. This response feels particularly striking in America, where polarization often dominates public discourse
–Christopher McElroen
DT: Audiences are invited to engage with the question of the debate after every show. Why do you think that is an important part of the production?
CM: Because our job as artists is to listen. People want to feel heard, and creating a space for dialogue allows that to happen. Personally, I am drawn to art and theater that doesn’t let me remain anonymous in a dark theater but instead asks me to participate in a conversation. Democracy requires participation, and so does art that aims to engage people on a civically engaged level.
Whether that participation is vocal or silent is irrelevant; what matters is the act of being present and engaging with the material and the questions it raises. Inviting audiences to reflect on and discuss the debate after each show aligns with that mission, fostering a sense of community and shared exploration that extends beyond the stage.
DT: You have been in Chicago before to direct the award-winning world premiere stage adaptation of Ralph Ellison’s novel Invisible Man at Court Theatre in 2012. I know that you had many community partnerships and events to discuss race and identity in America. Do you think that work contributed to your interest in Buckley and Baldwin?
CM: I see both Invisible Man and Debate: Baldwin vs. Buckley as part of a larger exploration of the complexity of America and the tension between its ideals and its lived reality. Just as at Court Theatre in 2012, what excites me about working with TimeLine is their deep commitment to outreach and engagement. They create spaces where audiences can grapple with these kinds of questions together. TimeLine’s approach aligns perfectly with the spirit of this production, which invites audiences to engage not just with the debate itself but with the broader issues it raises about race, identity, and democracy.
DT: In all your research for the play are there things you learned about Baldwin or Buckley that are not in the play, but you wish you could talk about?
CM: The well of Baldwin and Buckley is so deep that there’s no shortage of material one might want to explore. One fascinating outcome of our work on this play has been the development of another project by my longtime collaborator, Jaymes Jorsling. His work imagines the debate as a never-ending cycle, unfolding repeatedly through the years—a sort of Groundhog Day meets Waiting for Godot meets Debate. It’s a truly compelling concept that pulls the conversation through history, continually examining race and identity in America from different perspectives and eras.
This approach captures the timelessness of their arguments and reflects how these themes remain relevant in every generation. While it’s not part of this production, it’s exciting to see how this material continues to inspire new artistic explorations.
DT: Could you tell us more about the origins of your theater company, the american vicarious, and its mission?
CM: Sure. The short answer is that the american vicarious was founded in 2018 in the wake of the 2016 Presidential election. I wanted to create a space that would allow me to respond to current events with greater agility than I could as an independent artist.
The mission of the company reflects the same principles that have guided my work over the past 20 years: exploring the forces that unite and divide us as Americans, and the inherent conflict in our pursuit of a higher set of ideals.
The name—the american vicarious—comes from my desire to approach my work as an active observer rather than a direct participant. Our work, in whatever medium—whether it’s theatre, film, installations, or a game—is about stepping back to examine and reflect on the complexities of our society. It’s about posing questions through our projects and listening to the responses. In essence, I am a vicarious American, striving to better understand the world around me through the people I encounter and the artistic conversations we share.
DT: Your work is really varied and spans multiple genres. Are you able to tell us more about upcoming projects we should be looking for?
CM: Our next big project, Fight for America!, is an art installation that explores the events of January 6 through a participatory tabletop war game. We’ve been developing the project for the past two years, and it will premiere in London in June 2025 before coming to New York City in September 2025.
The project was born out of a desire to examine the dangers of politically motivated violence and the gamification of American politics, where the objective often seems to be winning at all costs. We chose a game as the medium because, much like democracy, it demands active participation and a commitment to shared rules and norms—principles that are also essential for a meaningful debate grounded in civility and respect.
Debate: Baldwin vs. Buckley runs at DePaul University’s Cortelyou Commons from January 29 through March 2, 2025.