How history plays out in presidential debates
Television changed electoral politics forever in 1960 when Richard Nixon perspired during a presidential debate vs, John F. Kennedy.
A propensity to sweat influenced viewers/voters’ opinion of Mr. Nixon. Peter Morgan addressed Mr. Nixon’s reaction to this is his play and movie, “Frost/Nixon,” which shows the former president to be sensitive to makeup and care between segments of a TV broadcast.
Whether a few drops on his upper lip cost Mr. Nixon election in 1960 or not is, well … debatable.
What is irrefutable is television made image as important as policy, experience, record in office, and other factors in the voters’ minds.
Debates have consequences, even in an election like America’s current one, when it seems difficult to think many can remain undecided given the vast differences in style, substance, and career of the two traditional-party candidates.
Yet, tonight’s debate, to be broadcast at 9 p.m. on all networks and four well-watched cable outlets as it proceeds live from Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., is one of the most anticipated in history.
Not only because, for the first time in history, a woman will take the podium as a significant candidate, but because no one knows exactly what to expect from either candidate, especially Republican contender Donald Trump, who can say anything that comes to his mind, even words besides “great,” “tremendous,” “huge,” “really big,” and “believe me,” and is so easily baited.
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is not known for her fiery rhetoric or even for clawing at opponents, but it will interesting to see if she goes for the weak points in Trump’s psyche and lures him into gaffes he wouldn’t make on his own.
Image, you see, carries the day again. How the candidates comport themselves might be, and probably will be exactly what earns or loses them the most votes.
And Clinton and Trump get to go head-to-head one-onone. In this election season, it may have behooved the Debate Commission or the television networks to have included Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, the choice of many who want to absolve themselves from anointing Clinton or Trump, in the debate.
If nothing else, Johnson would have provided an additional voice and possibly could have challenged Clinton and Trump in ways that are less predictable from the way the Democrat and GOP candidates are likely to go after each other.
Tonight’s debate, the first of three, has the best format. Its 90 minutes will be divided, allegedly equally, between six subjects – jobs, terrorism, foreign policy, health care, trade, and racism – all heady as Nov. 8, 2016 nears. The moderator is NBC news anchor Lester Holt, who is the most encouraging of the three gatekeepers assigned to the debates. The others are ABC’s Martha Raddatz on Sunday, Oct. 9, from St. Louis and Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace on Wednesday, Oct. 19 from Las Vegas. The St, Louis debate will have town hall format. The Las Vegas showdown will be structured along the lines of tonight’s event.
Holt is the best suited to have the moderator’s role. Though NBC, like its sister networks, tends to be partisan and lean towards liberal or progressive stances – we all know that television news organizations believe they should run the country instead of elected officials – Holt has proven to be a fair-minded journalist and one who does his own research and has command of information, unlike others who come with their own political agenda or follow scripts and questions devised in newsrooms for them to read as presenters.
It would be better if television was used only to broadcast and the debates were run by more neutral parties, which journalist are not any more, and had to conform to strict debate rules as practised in university and high school competitions. Alas, that is not the case. Trump unquestionably boosted ratings for the Republican primary debates. He also won the nomination. One has to question whether his approach of stream of consciousness, offhand remark, bombastic statement, and ridicule of opponents will work in the more critical, more serious arena of a president debate.
Everybody knows Clinton’s weakness is an inability to ad lib. What the Democrat nominee prepares, she will deliver well. No doubt she and her team are assembling some ringers like, “He can’t even take a Tweet,” in strategizing against Trump.
One question is what the audience wants to see or must see if the debate is really a means for people to solidify, change, or make a choice.
As I’ve said, I find it difficult to believe that most Americans have not made up their minds.
So why will people watch, and for what are they looking?
The answer could be fun. From outrage and uproar as much as anything else. Neither Clinton nor Trump are wildly popular considering they earned important nominations via primaries. People could be watching to reinforce their disdain of one or the other. Conversely, they could be watching to cheer or their donkey or elephant as the case may be.
I will tell you why I will watch. Or at least what I’d like to see.
Ever since the nominees were predictable, I’ve told people I’d like to be a fly, or polka dot, on the wall of a conference room on two distinct occasions. One is when Trump is making a legitimate deal. I’d like to see his demeanor as he negotiates, what he understands, how he compromises, and how he drives home his point of view to get the advantage or insure equitability. The other, as naturally follows, is to see Hillary Clinton in action as she makes a critical decision, even one that must take the wishes of Barack Obama into consideration, as Secretary of State.
I would like to see two people who have been in genuine action at a deciding point when they determined or accepted an action. I want to know who these two are people and executives and not how they appear as mere TV images.
What I want to see from Trump are signs of thoughtful discipline, rational consideration, and analysis or what he proposes, assuming that can be gleaned. From Clinton, I want to see someone who doesn’t talk of the last 24 years since her husband vied for, and won, the presidency, but a detailed outline of what she has in mind for Jan. 20, 2017, and onward.
I want to hear something real. I doubt I will. As anticipated as this debate is, I think it borders on being unnecessary.
Unless … one of both of the candidates shows something new and makes me fell a trust I do have now about either of them. I don’t think I’m alone in desiring that notion of trust.