Presidential Debates: Reality or Variety Show?

            I watched the presidential debate, but only a little, maybe ten minutes that I caught during commercial breaks as I switched from the final regular season baseball game to the debate. I don't think I missed much. What I heard, and saw in those few minutes was two guys, well coached, using a lot of words to be sure they said nothing.            

            I remember the first nationally televised debate in 1960, which set the precedent for all presidential debates to come, pitting the photogenic John F. Kennedy against the visibly run-down Richard Nixon. Though radio listeners ruled that Nixon won the debates, the 70 million viewers who watched on TV thought that Kennedy won over the weary, recently hospitalized Nixon. The debates played a prominent role in Nixon's eventual loss.  

            What was so shocking was the precedent. It wasn't what the candidates said, it was how they looked when they said it.  That night, politics was dragged from substance to showmanship. Will Rogers would have loved it. The debate stirred the political game so much that it would be 1976 before presidential candidates would agree to another one.

            During that debate President Ford shot himself in the foot while debating Jimmy Carter when he declared, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe," a statement that surprised voters and Eastern Europeans alike. Moderator Max Frankel's reaction, "I'm sorry, what?" summed up Ford's stumble.

            President Carter, looking to put Ronald Reagan on the defensive, ended up walking into a trap in 1980. During the campaign's only debate, held just a week before election day, Reagan jumped on an opportunity presented by Carter's persistent attacks on his Medicare policies, laughing off Carter's argument, with the now famous, "There you go again."

            In 1984, at the age of 73, Reagan was up for re-election. The Democrats were questioning if he, at that advanced age, was fit to be president. In one debate with the 56-year-old Walter Mondale, Reagan, ever the showman, said, "I want you to know also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience." Two quips, two terms.

            Candidate's words and actions are not the only things that can influence the debates. Moderators can alter the course. In the debate between then Vice President George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis in 1988, CNN correspondent Bernard Shaw asked Dukakis whether his staunch opposition to the death penalty would be waived were his wife to be raped and killed. Dukakis, calm and without much emotion, said no, and though the former Massachusetts governor stuck by his answer, his response to the atypical question did nothing to help his campaign.

            Vice-presidential candidates get into it too. In 1988, Dan Quayle claimed that he had, "as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency."

            He opened himself up for attack from Democratic Sen. Lloyd Bentsen who said, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy."

            "That was really uncalled for, Senator," Quayle replied.       

            "You're the one that was making the comparison," Bentsen said.

            There are more, such as when George H.W. Bush in the three-way debate with H. Ross Perot and Bill Clinton where he looked at his watch, then remarked later that he, "was glad when the damned thing was over." Al Gore tried to intimidate George Bush by leaving his podium and going over to stand next to him during their debate, making himself look foolish. 

            The Thursday after this most recent debate, Romney was declared the winner, but not so much for what he said, but for how he appeared while saying it. The critics said the President Obama appeared unprepared. I had to look hard to find out what they said, which when I did, was of little substance.

            I have two questions. The first, do the debates really sway voters? I have known for months how I am going to vote, and what issues made me go that way. I talk to a lot of people and I have not come across one who has said they would wait until the debates to decide. I am certain such are out there, but are there that many, and what are they deciding on, the issues, or the appearance?

            With the debates being more showmanship than substance, I ask my second question, why bother? Is America listening, or watching? I worry that our society has devolved into a state of "entertain me", don't tell me, show me. We want the candidate who looks presidential, is photogenic, and has a beautiful spouse. We want Camelot.

            I think America would rather have a Presidential Variety Show. Instead of being asked questions about unemployment, the economy, taxes, and health care that candidates have no intention of answering, why not assign them songs, dances, or musical instruments to play, and have a panel like American Idol decide who moves on and who doesn't? Maybe we could have a survivor like reality show where candidates could go onto some remote island and debate in tribes then vote each other off by snuffing out their torch.

            I don't watch those kinds of shows either, and if they were opposite the final regular season baseball game, I'd opt for the game, but you have to admit, it would be good entertainment. Entertainment is all we're getting now, but it isn't very good.