The great debates
In the coming days the world will witness whether Romney has what it takes to take on a sitting president. If he can do so, and land a punch or two, his odds for victory will improve considerably
One of the joys of covering American presidential elections is the superficial uniformity that belies the potential for chaos. Lest my point be lost, consider the rigidity of events and detailed planning that occurs to ensure (on the surface at least) that no detail can go wrong, that events occur like clockwork, and that 'democracy' can be celebrated from sea to shining sea.
And then candidates get involved and it all gets far more interesting…
The latest example of this is the quadrennial holding of the great debates. Every four years TV producers pull out stock footage of Kennedy and Nixonand hold the latest candidates up to this historical high-point in an attempt to offer 'analysis' and 'insight.' The debates form the dramatic highpoint of the election as the candidates appear together for the only time during the electoral process and seek to outdo one another.
The debates have recorded astronomical viewing figures. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that these 55 million viewers are switching on to learn anything new, however. These debates are not a forum for freethinking, or for wide-ranging answers, or even interaction between the candidates. It is a forum for the delivery of stock answers to what are often sycophantic questions. So why the high viewing figures?
For the same reason that millions tune in to watch NASCAR or Grand Prix races, part of the reason is in the hope of witnessing carnage –a truly awful moment that will define the election and which people can claim to have witnessed live.
Such incidents have occurred before, but are generally rare and becoming rarer. As politicians have become more professional and less personal, they have generally performed 'better,' stayed 'on message,' and not fallen foul of dangerous 'off the cuff' remark making.
Which has, of course, made the debates far less interesting.
Even when the odds look stacked in favour of a disaster, frantic preparation caused disappointment to the millions who tuned in to witness the expected car wreck of Sarah Palin’s 2008 debate with Joe Biden. Despite expectations, the general consensus was that she more than held her own, came across as engaging and, dare I say it, looked great in the camera cut away shot from the back of the stage...
In the 52 years since the televised debates began, there have been some remarkable turning points: The visual dynamism of JFK, Gerald Ford’s insistence that there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, Mondale’s admission that he would raise taxes, Lloyd Bentsen’s withering put down to Dan Qualye,and Clinton’s extraordinary use of the set to demonstrate his empathy with the audience.
Debates, therefore, are about far more than content. They are about conveying a feeling and a style that either attracts or repels voters. Gore’s condescension towards Bushin 2000 was palpable and reinforced the impression that Bush would be a far better drinking partner (although whether this is really the basis for electing a president is another matter).
- Interview with BBC Question Time Tory, Emily Hewertson
- Does socialism work? A classroom experiment
- Why Brown was right - the state should not hold gold!
- MPs are ignoring the sell-out of our military to the EU
- Matt Warman: An example of the disconnect between some MPs and their Conservative Associations
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.