Election 2004  
comments_image Comments

Debates Don't Make or Break Presidents

Political and personal beliefs, party affiliation, and values still make a longer lasting impression.
 
 
Share
 

In a late life reflection in 1987 on what went right and wrong in his long and checkered political career, former President Richard Nixon had this to say about presidential debates, "In the television age, a candidate's appearance and style count far more than his ideas and record." At first glance, Nixon more than any other presidential candidate in modern times should know about that. The widely held belief is that Nixon's fidgety, wooden style, and unkempt appearance in his first 1960 televised debate with a relaxed, tanned, youthful looking John F. Kennedy did him in.

In their two follow-up debates, though, a much better composed and relaxed Nixon came off as having as good, if not better, command of the issues than Kennedy. His perceived debate loss to Kennedy didn't finish him. The probable vote machinations by Democrats in Illinois, a lukewarm, belated endorsement by the wildly popular President Dwight Eisenhower, and Nixon's refusal to phone Martin Luther King Sr. to offer support when Martin Luther King Jr. was jailed for civil rights protests in Georgia badly damaged him. Kennedy made the call. As a result, Nixon's vote among blacks dropped nearly 10 percent from Eisenhower's in 1956.

Nixon's alleged debate floperoo sealed the belief that an afternoon shadow, mussed hair, a malapropism, and a gaffe during a debate will make or break presidents and their challengers. That's a myth. In 1976, President Ford's bid for a full elected term supposedly went down the tubes when he blurted out that Poland wasn't under Soviet domination during his debate with Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter. Presumably, that gaffe shot to pieces Ford's credibility on vital foreign policy issues. But Ford could not shake Republican blame for the Watergate scandal, and his pardon of Nixon. That more than his debate miscue did him in.

In 1980, it was thought that Republican challenger Ronald Reagan's carefully scripted and rehearsed "There you go again" retort to Carter when he accused him of wanting to slash Medicare so befuddled Carter that his re-election bid came unglued. But by the time of their debate, Carter's presidency was badly tattered. Voters blamed him for high inflation, unemployment, waves of business failures, and the bungled Iran hostage rescue mission.

In 1988, Democratic presidential contender Michael Dukakis' automaton-like answer in his debate with Vice President Bush Sr. to the loaded question about the death penalty supposedly blew his presidential bid. But Bush Sr. carried Reagan's imprimatur. The Reagan administration gave the appearance of fostering an economic boom, had stunning foreign policy successes marked by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and stratospheric public approval ratings.

In his debate with Democratic challenger Bill Clinton in 1992, President Bush Sr. repeatedly glanced at his watch and seemed impatient to get the debate over. That allegedly soured voters on him. That did not torpedo his re-election bid. Bush's inability to resuscitate the economy and urban racial turmoil badly hurt him. What really nailed him was the insurgent campaign of Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot. He siphoned off thousands of potential Republican votes. That cost Bush more than a hundred electoral votes in thirteen key Southern and swing states that Republicans had either won during Reagan's presidential triumphs, or had run strongly in.

In 2000, Bush Jr. came off as personable, witty, and conversational in his debate with Democrat Al Gore. By contrast Gore was perceived as stiff, arrogant, and condescending. Yet, many experts believed that despite Gore's personality glitches, he still beat Bush on the issues. Gore went on to win the popular vote. It took the Florida vote debacle and a Supreme Court ruling to settle the matter for Bush.

Do presidential debates then really influence voters to back a candidate and educate them on the issues? One study found that the majority of voters felt they had not learned anything knew from the debates, and were disappointed at that. The minority of respondents who said they learned something new from a debate insisted that it didn't influence their decision on whom to vote for. Party affiliation, long-standing political preferences, personal beliefs and values largely determine that.

A checklist of 29 "do's" and "don'ts," suggested by experts for Bush and Gore before their 2000 debate, read more like two contestants being prepped to compete for a charm school prize. Only one of the "do's" explicitly advised them to focus on the issues. Presidential candidates and incumbents since Nixon's debate meltdown with Kennedy have spent small fortunes on legions of media consultants, debate coaches, and make-up and hair stylists. They prep themselves on when to smile, laugh, how to dress, and what joke lines to deliver. They study every detail of camera lighting, shots, and angles. But Kennedy's better debate face did not make or break the badly outclassed Nixon. And winning the battle for appearance and style won't make or break Bush or Kerry this time around either.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is the publisher of The Hutchinson Report Newsletter, an online public issues newsletter. Subscribe: hutchinsonreport@aol.com