Debates: Made in the U.S.A.
Published in El Pais
(Spain) on 7 November /2011
by Antonio Caño (link to original)
(Spain) on 7 November /2011
by Antonio Caño (link to original)
Translated from
by Adam Zimmerman.
Edited by Alyssa Goulding.
Electoral debates are an American contribution to the world’s political culture, just as the hamburger is to gastronomy and blue jeans are to fashion. What they all have in common is that they are practical, cheap and very profitable. Today it is practically impossible to conceive of a truly democratic election without a televised debate by the main candidates. They allow voters to make comparisons, give us an opportunity to pull politicians off their scripts and increase the network’s audience in the process because they tend to be very popular shows, though they are not necessarily amusing. Some critics complain that they serve to elect the most telegenic candidate, not the best politician. But no one has invented a more effective mechanism to let millions of citizens get to know the individuals amongst whom they must decide.
In the United States, debates have entered a phase of relative decline. The resource has been so overused that it is losing its relevance. The candidates have become adept at outwitting their opponents’ attacks without revealing their own weaknesses, and the public has become bored with the repetition of rehearsed phrases and stale speeches. In spite of it all, debates will certainly be significant in deciding the presidential election of 2012. The Republican candidates have already had nine such debates since last spring — the latest one was held in Las Vegas — and another eight have been scheduled before the Iowa caucuses in early January. Several more will take place throughout the next year; at least three will be held between Obama and whoever ultimately becomes the opposing presidential candidate. Whatever happens during the campaign, these debates can mean the resurrection or downfall of any of the participants. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has seen his aspirations destroyed because of his dreadful debating skills, while in the case of Herman Cain, his simple and direct debating style created a serious contender out of a largely unknown candidate who seemed destined to become an also-ran.
Debates have been a part of American politics since the 19th century and have been an element of presidential elections during most of the 20th century, initially as radio broadcasts. But it was the 1960 election, with the advent of television, when this instrument achieved the enormous influence that it has today. It is impossible to separate John F. Kennedy’s victory over Richard Nixon from his earlier triumph in the famous debate in which the Democratic senator appeared young and optimistic, while the Republican vice president, stolidly refusing to wear makeup, was hurt by a bleak appearance owing to his five o’clock shadow. Kennedy and Nixon held a total of five debates that year, but Nixon met his Waterloo in the first and never recovered.
The lethal effects of that debate and a series of legal difficulties caused the debates to cease until 1976. The country’s political memory holds many great moments from electoral debates, such as when Ronald Reagan, in 1980, in order to point out the leadership failure of his opponent, Jimmy Carter, said the audience should ask themselves if they were better off than they had been four years ago. Another memory is of the same president — who was a professional actor, after all — who, in order to downplay his age (then 74) in 1984, said that he did not plan to exploit for political purposes the youth and inexperience of his rival, Walter Mondale. Additionally, Michael Dukakis sealed his fate in a debate against George H.W. Bush in 1988 after he gave a hesitant answer when asked if he would accept the death penalty against someone who had raped and killed his wife.
It is possible to survive a bad debate, as long as the failure is not resounding. Obama lost almost all his debates against Hillary Clinton in 2008, but did not commit irreparable errors in any of them. Later, he barely won his duels with John McCain, who did not lose the election because of his performance in the debates, but who also was not able to take advantage of them to reduce his opponent’s lead.
In the last few years, the debates have become so professionalized that they have lost much of the value that they had in the beginning. The seven famous debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas for a Senate seat in 1858 were held without a moderator. In 1960, as Chris Matthews tells in his book “Jack Kennedy,” the tricks were as rudimentary as turning down the air-conditioning in the room so that Nixon would sweat. Now, candidates spend hours training for every possible situation that could come up during a debate; it is very difficult, no matter how wise the moderator may be, to catch the candidates in a misstep.
Recently there has been a trend toward incorporating into the debates questions from citizens sent via the Internet. It is also common to allow the studio audience to ask questions, if the candidates agree. But there is no substitute for the moderator, a job which, in the U.S., has been performed by the country’s greatest journalists, from Walter Cronkite to Brian Williams.
In the United States, debates have entered a phase of relative decline. The resource has been so overused that it is losing its relevance. The candidates have become adept at outwitting their opponents’ attacks without revealing their own weaknesses, and the public has become bored with the repetition of rehearsed phrases and stale speeches. In spite of it all, debates will certainly be significant in deciding the presidential election of 2012. The Republican candidates have already had nine such debates since last spring — the latest one was held in Las Vegas — and another eight have been scheduled before the Iowa caucuses in early January. Several more will take place throughout the next year; at least three will be held between Obama and whoever ultimately becomes the opposing presidential candidate. Whatever happens during the campaign, these debates can mean the resurrection or downfall of any of the participants. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has seen his aspirations destroyed because of his dreadful debating skills, while in the case of Herman Cain, his simple and direct debating style created a serious contender out of a largely unknown candidate who seemed destined to become an also-ran.
Debates have been a part of American politics since the 19th century and have been an element of presidential elections during most of the 20th century, initially as radio broadcasts. But it was the 1960 election, with the advent of television, when this instrument achieved the enormous influence that it has today. It is impossible to separate John F. Kennedy’s victory over Richard Nixon from his earlier triumph in the famous debate in which the Democratic senator appeared young and optimistic, while the Republican vice president, stolidly refusing to wear makeup, was hurt by a bleak appearance owing to his five o’clock shadow. Kennedy and Nixon held a total of five debates that year, but Nixon met his Waterloo in the first and never recovered.
The lethal effects of that debate and a series of legal difficulties caused the debates to cease until 1976. The country’s political memory holds many great moments from electoral debates, such as when Ronald Reagan, in 1980, in order to point out the leadership failure of his opponent, Jimmy Carter, said the audience should ask themselves if they were better off than they had been four years ago. Another memory is of the same president — who was a professional actor, after all — who, in order to downplay his age (then 74) in 1984, said that he did not plan to exploit for political purposes the youth and inexperience of his rival, Walter Mondale. Additionally, Michael Dukakis sealed his fate in a debate against George H.W. Bush in 1988 after he gave a hesitant answer when asked if he would accept the death penalty against someone who had raped and killed his wife.
It is possible to survive a bad debate, as long as the failure is not resounding. Obama lost almost all his debates against Hillary Clinton in 2008, but did not commit irreparable errors in any of them. Later, he barely won his duels with John McCain, who did not lose the election because of his performance in the debates, but who also was not able to take advantage of them to reduce his opponent’s lead.
In the last few years, the debates have become so professionalized that they have lost much of the value that they had in the beginning. The seven famous debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas for a Senate seat in 1858 were held without a moderator. In 1960, as Chris Matthews tells in his book “Jack Kennedy,” the tricks were as rudimentary as turning down the air-conditioning in the room so that Nixon would sweat. Now, candidates spend hours training for every possible situation that could come up during a debate; it is very difficult, no matter how wise the moderator may be, to catch the candidates in a misstep.
Recently there has been a trend toward incorporating into the debates questions from citizens sent via the Internet. It is also common to allow the studio audience to ask questions, if the candidates agree. But there is no substitute for the moderator, a job which, in the U.S., has been performed by the country’s greatest journalists, from Walter Cronkite to Brian Williams.
Next article![]( "Women Drag Down Republican Candidate for U.S. President")