It's surprising that 40 years passed between the Nixon-Kennedy debates in 1960, which won the largest viewing audience in television history until then, and the airing of the first season of Survivor, a monster hit that launched the "reality" boom that's dominated television ever since. Those presidential debates were arguably the first reality show. What took so long for television executives to figure out that there's gold in them thar unscripted hills?
We speak with reverence about the Nixon-Kennedy debates, as though judging their outcome by whose 5 o'clock shadow looked worse on TV doesn't amount to Exhibit A of our susceptibility to stagecraft. We love recalling Ronald Reagan's putting away the age issue with a gag ("I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience"), as though his getting off a good joke were enough to undo our complicity in his subsequent cluelessness about Iran-Contra. We delight in noting how Al Gore's sighing, George H.W. Bush's looking at his watch and Michael Dukakis' unwillingness to bite Bernie Shaw's head off because of a hypothetical about his wife Kitty being raped, could well have lost them the White House, as though deciding presidential elections on American Idol criteria weren't an indictment of the shallowness of the media-political complex.
Yet we keep on insisting that how a candidate does in a presidential debate is a useful surrogate for how he would do as president. What was there about George W. Bush's opposition to nation building in the 2000 debates that could have enabled us to anticipate his aggrandizing freedom-on-the-march agenda? What was it in Dick Cheney's performance during the debates that could have prefigured the most arrogant flouting of the Constitution in the history of the Republic? For that matter, what was it that Bill Clinton said to Bob Dole in 1996 that might have forewarned us of the indiscipline and heartache to follow? Only hindsight makes any of those encounters illuminating.
As an inveterate goo-goo, I know I should be encouraged by the new proposal from the Commission on Presidential Debates: to junk the 30-second timers and to give the candidates eight 10-minute segments to discuss single topics that are lobbed in by a moderator who then withdraws to the sidelines. But this strikes me as tinkering at the margins.
Candidates have an innate horror of going off message. That's why debate prep is a quadrennial growth industry in campaignland. Thick binders, with tabbed Qs & As on every conceivable topic, are already being assembled. Key phrases are being polled and focus-grouped. The most wounding attacks are being imagined and countered. Potentially embarrassing votes and quotes are being cataloged and repudiated. Jokes and one-liners are being contributed by advisers and gag-writers. Stand-ins for the opposition are being coached for rehearsal. Gimmicks and stunts are being compiled and considered: issuing a challenge to sign a no-new-taxes pledge, say, or to have your gums examined by a panel of independent periodontists.
Presidential debates are solemnly portrayed by the media as great learning opportunities for the public. But unless something goes very wrong, there is nothing substantive a candidate will say in a debate that he has never said before. We are conditioned by the press to expect spontaneity, candor, a bombshell, a Perry Mason ending. "Did you hear that? He's for the Arabs! He admitted it!" Or: "See? He's a just another Republican, in maverick's clothing." But what we actually get is political kabuki -- scripted and choreographed down to the last gesture and gerund.
The early press reaction to the Commission on Presidential Debates' proposed format is a microcosm of what now counts for political analysis. At two of the three debates, candidates will sit together at a table. This, we are told in various media accounts, will have the effect of neutralizing the height advantage that Obama, at 6 foot 1, has over McCain, who is 5 foot 9.
I don't doubt that for some American voters, a candidate's height is a worthy proxy for his presidentiality. Nor do I doubt that for other Americans, race or age or rumors will determine whom they choose. I am also aware -- though it depresses me deeply -- that the outcome of the election will likely depend on those voters who reach Election Day still undecided. Apparently a two-year campaign will have offered these swing voters in swing states insufficient information on which to base a decision.
That the result of a presidential race may depend on the limbic systems of a million or so Americans is a feature, not a bug, of universal suffrage. What Thomas Jefferson and James Madison proposed as countervailing measures to combat the potential dangers of self-government were a thriving public education system, an ingenious mechanism of checks and balances and a robust Fourth Estate. Unfortunately, none of these systems for safeguarding democracy from ignorance and subversion is in notably healthy shape today, which leaves us at the mercy of sound bites, canned quips and body language.
Instead of applauding genteel format tweaking, why don't we junk the Commission on Presidential Debates entirely? It was an outrage when, in 1986, the two political parties seized control of the debates from the League of Women Voters. Ever since, the candidates have signed Memoranda of Understanding under party auspices that virtually guarantee the twin hazards of civic piety and packaged zingers.
Rather than holding the debates in college auditoriums full of "soft supporters," why not broadcast one of them, say, from a crowded classroom in Dorsey High during lockdown and see which candidate can best connect with the future American workforce? Rather than pretending that questions like, "How can you do everything you promise and still balance the budget?" will get honest answers, why not ask the viewing audience to text in after each response whether they believed what they heard?
My first question for the candidates? "If you don't do something in your first 100 days that pisses off half the public, you'll be a lousy president who'll break the country's heart again. Energy, education, immigration, Iraq: nothing's got easy answers. Which of you has the balls to tell us some hard ones?" Well, maybe not "pisses off" and "balls." But you get the idea. And so should they.
* * *
A version of this appears as my weekly column at www.jewishjournal.com.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
My best idea:
The 2008 Presidential Debates,
presented by Comedy Central.
With your hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (in character, natch)
I would guess it would compare favorably with the ABC debates....
"Locked in with high schoolers? Obama wins, hands down."
"young people are moved by vision, energy, and self-interest."
You are correct on both counts. Most young people haven't lived enough to know their behinds from first base. Their main concerns are raging hormones and video games.
Do you have any young people living at your house? Maybe if you do the fact that you raised them might explain why they don't know their behinds from first base. My young people (my children) have more compassion for their fellow human beings than "Kill the Iranians with cigarettes" McCain, and as the oldest votes in his first election this year, he won't be voting for the one who wants to send him to war.
How about dealing with "utter disbelief?"
Not one of these so-called candidates is in any way "apart from the current status-quo." They are "a part of the current status-quo." They are sitting Senators, and their every move is a matter of public record thanks to the Librarians of Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov.
"By their fruits shall ye know them," and we know that this fruit is rotten to the core. No matter how earnestly we want change, and therefore want to believe that "someone" will miraculously give it to us, the time has long since passed when we must stop looking for saviors and miracle-workers. If rats are unopposed, they will scour the countryside and bring more rats to your house. It does not matter how you try to decorate your home; it does not matter what aspirations you have for your future: you MUST GET RID OF THOSE RATS.
Unfair to rats.
If we kill all the people then who will build the robots?
Locked in with high schoolers? Obama wins, hands down. They'd be polite to McCain, as they would be polite to their senile, beloved grandfathers, but young people are moved by vision, energy, and self-interest. Also, Obama is more articulate, and better informed. He'd come off as "smarter". High schoolers respect that.
The self interest? Urban high schoolstudents get that they are the future cannon fodder...that in a crashing economy, the only upward mobility chance they have is to risk their lives and limbs in the Bush/McCain "hundred year occupation" to control the last big oil puddle. They're not real excited about it.....
how about if the candidates just sit on a stage answering questions from the public in a town hall style debate??oh no that sounds like something sen mc cain suggested and bho went and hid under his bed.sen obama is afraid to sit down and debate unless people like wolf blitzer lob softball questions at him.
You're kidding me right? The only type of debate McCain would feel comfortable with would be in this "town-hall" style. Why would Obama offer him any scraps? Obama knows how to debate head to head. McCain will provide nothing but gaffes.
I think the GOP knows they need four years off to rehabilitate their image so that in four years they can return to power and go back to their plan to "drown it [government] in the bathtub.*" When Obama wins he's going to have so much crap from the Bush administration to deal with it'll be tough to get it all done, so the GOP plotters think they'll be able to come back in four to try it all over again. That's the only logic behind their current lack of strategy.
*Grover Norquist
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010514/dreyfuss
You know what would be a great debate? Each of the candidates HAVING TO DEBATE WELL EDUCATED, WELL INFORMED NON CANDIDATES. Just real people who know the real problems and have real answers, not these bought and paid for excuses for candidates. Americas election process sucks.
You are all living in a bubble. This town hall meetings are highly orchestrated. All the people who get to ask questions are planted by the two campaigns. If you go to any of these events, if you happen to get in, which is very unlikely because all the seats are taken by chosen party members, you will be seated somewhere in the back far away from any microphones or candidates.
The best debate was the open air labor one that Keith Olbermann hosted, and the difference was that the audience participated. They applauded, they cheered, and when the retired disabled steelworker told how his benefits had been cut and he couldn't afford health care for his wife of many years and asked, "What's wrong with America and what will you do to change it?" he got a roaring standing ovation. So, #1, liberate the audience.
#2, liberate the candidates. You are so right, take control of the debates away from the parties and the MSM, and give it back to the League of Women Voters. Or better yet, to the guy behind West Wing. West Wing's debate between Alan Alda and Jimmy Smits is what you're looking for, it was great! The candidates threw format out the window and really, sincerely engaged each other. I don't even remember a moderator.
Marty, I am not sure how revelant his is but your fine article reminds me of something I heard way back in the 1950's: Some one asked Bess Truman what Harry said when he came back to the White House after firing General Douglas MacArthur and she said, "Nothing, but his balls where clanging!"
The best way to conduct a Presidential debate is of course, for the Democrats to put up a competant candidate. Failing in that, have academics ask the questions, but you must make sure that half are from colleges such as Hillsdale, Pepperdine, and the like. I believe that at that point, the electorate will see Barry Obama for the empty vessel he truly is.
You obviously meant to say, "The best way to conduct a Presidential debate is of course, for the Republicans to put up a competant (sic) candidate...I believe that at that point, the electorate will see John McCain for the empty vessel and flip-flopping weasel he truly is."
BEHusseinM777
Barry? am I missing some insiders' joke?
the author writes:
I am also aware -- though it depresses me deeply -- that the outcome of the election will likely depend on those voters who reach Election Day still undecided....
I am beyond understanding how any sane person could even possibly consider McCain...allowing that Barak Obama is far from perfect, ergo, human,...ask youselves this...is the economy better than it was 8 years ago? Is the world safer than it was 8 years ago? is the U. S. as strong as it was 8 years ago?
Have you learned ANYTHING in 8 years? the definition of insanity..is doing the same thing over and over..expecting a different outcome..McCain will finish the ruination of the United States of America as we "knew" her....he will finish the job (sic) dubya/cheney started...is that really what you want? or what say..you give Mr. Obama 4 years to try to clean this mess up a bit...if he fails miserably...hell..you'll get another bite at that forbidden apple...but just for today, put on your thinking caps...and say hmmmm.....
things pretty much suck right now...maybe time for a CHANGE! (it's the economy stupid)
Halsey, I fear that asking some of these cretins to put on their thinking caps and to be intellectually honest is asking too much of them. They have bought the Republican goods.
BEHusseinM777
Hillsdale, Pepperdine--? How about Bill Maher? Michael Moore? Jon Stewart? Stephen Colbert? Somebody sharp who will listen and probe and see beyond the syllables?
Also, it didn't take a debate moderator to make Obama look empty, he did that to himself.
Y'know, you might have a great idea there... I wonder what would happen if Colbert, Moore, Maher, or Stewart hosted (OK, moderated) a debate? We might just possibly maybe get a good debate with real questions and real answers!
No definitions were found for competant .
If we stay quiet then no one will know.
Not quiet enough, if you can't even spell that which you seek to condemn.
My first question for the candidates? "If you don't do something in your first 100 days that pisses off half the public, you'll be a lousy president who'll break the country's heart again. Energy, education, immigration, Iraq: nothing's got easy answers. Which of you has the balls to tell us some hard ones?" Well, maybe not "pisses off" and "balls." But you get the idea. And so should they.
How come you get to write "pisses off", but the bad language filter won't let me write "the economy's going down the sh**er"?
I was waiting to see how you thought Obama and McCain would deal with a school on lockdown--because I have been there myself myriad times. It may as well be, "LIVE FROM SAN QUENTIN--IT'S THE OBAMA AND MCCAIN DEBATE" Now that would be the ultimate lockdown...
As for the nature of Prsidential debates the problem is they aren't truly debates. They do not fit the constructs of either true policy nor Lincoln-Douglas styles which are used in high schools and colleges. If they did, maybe the opportunity for spin would be diminished. I like the idea of LD style myself. I'd like to have one with a McCain resolution and one with an Obama resolution and let each take turns presenting a case supporting a particular resolution, RESOLVED: MCCAIN IS THE ULTIMATE FLIP-FLOPPER OF FLIP-FLOPPERS, AND MAY HAVE ALREADY FORGOTTEN WHAT HE SAID YESTERDAY; or, RESOLVED: OBAMA IS A YOUNG WIPPER-SNAPPER WHO COULDN'T GET CAPTURED IN A WAR AND SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT.
The cross examinations would be exquisite.
Marty, I agreed with everything you wrote in this piece except the last paragraph that argues against your thesis. Were we to follow that last bit of advice, whoever has the "balls" to give us some hard ones would lose, hands down.
Bread and circuses. The Romans knew it.
Texting in "believe you or not" would be an interactive experience not to be missed. If only.....
Wow - I was shocked to read your excellent article. Mr Kaplan - you have not only hit the problem nail on the head, you have described why it's a problem. I haven't seen anyone put it so well as you did, and I don't think I've seen anyone else seriously consider junking the debate system, replacing it with - well, a better one.
Actually, I'd like to see the candidates talk to a group of high school seniors in lockdown. I'd like to see anything at all that's unscripted. I wouldn't even mind giving each candidate 5 minutes between the question and the answer to allow each one the chance to collect his thoughts and perhaps emit a response with substance.
I'm old enough to remember the Nixon-Kennedy debates. Even though I was a child, I could see that something important was happening, and it wasn't in the words, it was in the pictures. As an adult, I tried listening to the audio from those debates. Nixon, to his detriment, actually answered the questions put to him, and even JFK replied with non-empty words. I'd love to see and hear a REAL debate again, but I wonder if anything will work to make it so. Our candidates are so severely over-prepared that they might just faint if they had to provide real answers to real questions.
"I'd like to see anything at all that's unscripted."
That would have been Mike Gravel. Breaking out and turning to Clinton and saying, "I'm ashamed of you Hillary" for voting to authorize war with Iran, just as she had authorized war with Iraq. Her off-balance response: "Ha ha ha." It was her most telling debate moment. And if only Gravel had been allowed equal time. His ideas pushed the other candidates in ways that the moderators never did. He was the one who I cheered. And Kucinich and Dodd.
Another interesting debate was the NPR radio one. Candidates picked up on what each other was saying -- you could hear them learn and work together and get better. I was never so confident of the Democratic candidate than when they were all on stage together. Kind of like the Beatles. Ok, a streeeetch to make a point. Now that we're down to one candidate and that one comes down on the wrong side of the Constitution, I just wish we could go back, go back...
I agree with what you were getting at. But you have to admit that Nixon's 5'oclock shadow really and truly was an accurate representation of his shady persona. Likewise with JFK's "bronze warrior" look .
Hmm, well, I suppose in some ways, it's accurate to say that JFK's "bronze warrior" look was an accurate representation of his persona, since we know now how very good he was at hiding things from the public....I mean, you ARE aware that his healthy bronzed appearance was a result of his Addison's disease, which was a debilitating, not very treatable, and sometimes fatal disease at the particular moment in medical history, right? This would be the serious medical condition that he hid from everyone outside of his immediate family, and certainly would not allow as public knowledge.
Saturday Night Live's sketch about the vice presidential debate starred Queen...
Appearing on a friendlier news outlet, Gov. Sarah Palin said she was "annoyed" with the way Kat
Loading comments…
Posted July 6, 2008 | 02:34 PM (EST)