By Michael A. Genovese
There are three rules to presidential debating: 1. Don’t lose; 2. Don’t say anything stupid; and 3. Do not get off message.
Today debates are the norm; they used to be the exception. While we have come to expect presidential candidates to debate one another in both the primaries and general elections, the number, format, and the rules are always open to bargaining and negotiation. Debates regularly attract a large audience, especially the first in the series, and candidates usually spend a great deal of time and effort preparing and rehearsing. Little should be left to chance.
Often, debates are little more than beauty contests where star power or style win out over substance. How, one might wonder, would George Washington, with his aloof stiffness or Thomas Jefferson, with his weak speaking voice, have fared in our current debate format? Poorly, one must presume.
Debates do not often help a campaign, but they can sure hurt. In 1960, Nixon was hurt by the debates as he appeared “unpresidential” compared to the more poised Kennedy. In 1976, the debates almost certainly cost Gerald Ford the election when he gave the impression that he thought Poland had been freed of Soviet control. And in 1980, the debates helped Ronald Reagan shake the lightweight image and helped him win the election.
Debates are supposed to test the candidates, reveal who they really are, show them under stress and fire, give voters the opportunity to do some direct comparison shopping, and let them judge each candidate in a forum that is challenging and pressure filled. Do the debates really do this? Yes, but not very well. First of all, the debates are not real debates. They are parallel question and answer sessions. But at least the candidate cannot control the agenda or questions, and they must react spontaneously to sometimes difficult questions. True, they try to rely on well-rehearsed canned responses, but there are times when they are truly caught off guard, and we get an insight into the thinking and character of the candidate.
Do debates reveal the inner person? Do they expose the intellect, the character, the ability of the candidates? Hardly. Gone are the days of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where, in 1858, these two giants held forth for a series of two- and sometimes three-hour man-to-man debates. Today, debates are too controlled to reveal very much. And that is just how the campaigns like it.
Determining who wins and who loses debates is as important as it is complicated. All parties have their spin doctors descend on the press after the debates trying to get them to interpret the debate in a way that favors their candidate. In this the media and its talking heads can matter. Yet, rarely are there clear winners.
The 2016 general election debates were highly anticipated events and they drew record numbers of viewers. Donald Trump was the draw, and viewers tuned in to see fireworks and name-calling, the trademark of his past debate performances in the Republican primaries. Both candidates had gone through a tough series of debates in the primaries, so neither could be considered an amateur debater. The consensus was that Hillary Clinton bested Donald Trump in the debates, and this may have given Clinton a bit of an electoral edge, but the impact was largely marginal. No knockout punch was delivered, and very few voters cited the debates as the reason they voted for or against either candidate.
How can we improve the debate format? One way would be to have real debates. Put the two (or three) candidates in a room, turn on the TV cameras, and let them at each other. It might be useful to have a moderator (adult supervision) but it is not absolutely necessary. In recent debates, moderators have become part of the story, detracting, some argue, from the face-to-face confrontation between the candidates. Donald Trump’s response to Fox News broadcaster Megan Kelly (“bleeding from her whatever”) was revealing and gave a spark to the post-debate discussions adding to the drama of the debates. Another idea is to have more “average citizen” or town hall questioners. Yet another idea is to have area specialists and academics ask questions. While this might produce a bit of arcane questioning, it would be revealing how the candidates handled such questions.
Another question is “what to do about third parties?” How does one establish the legitimacy of a third-party challenger? Today, the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonpartisan organization sponsors the debates. They have established the 15 percent polling threshold for inclusion in the debates. Only Ross Perot in the 1990s has been able to leap this hurdle.
Whatever method wins out, it is clear that as imperfect as they may be, debates are here to stay and they can, though rarely do, have a significant impact on the outcome of a presidential election. Candidates can dodge questions, give canned responses to tough questions, or otherwise avoid the difficult issues. But even here, candidates are revealing something about themselves, and voters have a greater opportunity to make judgments about the men and women who wish to lead the nation.
Michael A. Genovese holds the Loyola Chair of Leadership and is president of the Global Policy Institute at Loyola Marymount University. The author of 50 books, Genovese is a regular commentator on CNN, CNNi, CBS and other news programs.
Photo: Gage Skidmore, Creative Commons
