Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
When pundits settle on a candidate, they often fall into a trap, articulating arguments on behalf of their favorite or against his or her rivals that cast doubt on their judgment. In his piece on National Review Online endorsing Mitt Romney, Ramesh Ponnuru did not add to the force of his argument (which did have force) when he threw in this:
It’s true that Romney took a sharp right turn when he moved from state to national politics. But it’s also true that in 2008 he was the candidate behind whom Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, among other conservative notables, said that the conservative movement should rally in order to stop John McCain from getting the nomination.
And Kathryn Jean Lopez did not do herself proud when she repeated this meme in a follow-up piece. The fact that the proud father of Romneycare fooled Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin (not to mention the folks at National Review) in 2008 tells us more about them and about their visceral dislike at that time for John McCain than about Romney himself.
Ross Douthat fell into the same trap in his column in The New York Times on Sunday. Here is his premise: “Newt Gingrich’s recent rise in the polls is being sustained, in part, by a right-wing version of exactly the impulse that led Democrats to nominate Kerry: a desperate desire to somehow beat Barack Obama at his own game, and to explode what conservatives consider the great fantasy of the 2008 campaign — the conceit that Obama possessed an unmatched brilliance and an unprecedented eloquence.”
Let’s grant that this claim has some force (because it does have force). And let’s pause to admire the eloquence with which Douthat skewers the erstwhile admirers of The Great Prevaricator:
This fantasy ran wild four years ago. Obama is “probably the smartest guy ever to become president,” the presidential historian Michael Beschloss announced shortly after the November election. The then-candidate’s Philadelphia address on race and Jeremiah Wright was “as great a speech as ever given by a presidential candidate,” a group of progressive luminaries declared in The Nation. Obama’s “Dreams From My Father” is quite possibly “the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician,” Time Magazine’s Joe Klein declared. “He is not the Word made flesh,” Ezra Klein wrote of Obama’s rhetoric in The American Prospect, “but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.”
It’s easy to see why this kind of myth-making would infuriate Obama’s opponents. And so ever since the 2008 election, the right has embraced a sweeping counternarrative, in which the president’s eloquence is a myth and his brilliance a pure invention. Take away his campaign razzle-dazzle and his media cheering section, this argument goes, and what remains is a droning pedant, out of his depth and tongue-tied without a teleprompter.
It is here, Douthat continues, that Newt Gingrich makes his appearance:
“How does a Columbia-Harvard graduate, who was the editor of the law review ... supposedly the best orator in the Democratic Party,” Gingrich asked recently, “how does he look himself in the mirror and say he’s afraid to debate a West Georgia College professor?” It’s a line that evokes a kind of conservative revenge fantasy, in which the liberal elitists who sneered at George W. Bush’s malapropisms and Sarah Palin’s “you betchas” receive their richly deserved comeuppance at the hands of Newton Gingrich, Ph.D.
So far, so good. Gingrich played the political card that Douthat has identified. But, then, the latter goes off the deep end, arguing that debates between candidates do not really matter very much at all, echoing Quin Hillyer of The American Spectator in rejecting what the latter calls “the fallacy of the master debater,” which Douthat defines as “the belief that elections turn on dramatic rhetorical confrontations, in which the smarter and better-spoken candidate exposes his rival as a tongue-tied boob.” And what is the latter’s argument? It is this:
In reality, Kerry outdebated Bush but did not outpoll him, Al Gore won the 2000 debates on points only to lose them on personality, and Abraham Lincoln lost the Illinois Senate race to Stephen Douglas. When a presidential debate does matter to a campaign’s outcome, it’s usually a passing one-liner (Ronald Reagan’s “there you go again” Walter Mondale’s “where’s the beef?”) rather than a Ciceronian performance that makes the difference.
The examples that Douthat lists do not provide a firm foundation for his argument. To begin with, it is not at all clear that Kerry outdebated Bush and that Al Gore won the 2000 debates on points. In any case, oratory is, as Aristotle and Quintillian point out, at least as much about ethos (which Douthat calls “personality”) as it is about logos (or argument).
But what about Abraham Lincoln? He did, indeed, lose the Illinois Senate race. Stephen Douglas won in 1858. But this was due to gerrymandering. In those days, the state legislatures elected the Senators, and in that particular election the Illinois Republicans received more votes statewide than did the Democrats. Moreover, it was Lincoln’s performance in those debates that subsequently won him the Republican Presidential nomination, and his victory in the Presidential race was due to the damage he did Douglas by forcing the latter to articulate a defense of his stance on slavery that, he hoped, would satisfy the people of Illinois – for the position adopted by Douglas outraged Democrats from the deep South, bitterly split the Democratic Party, and opened the way for Lincoln’s victory in 1860.
And Ronald Reagan? He was not a great debater. But, as Douthat’s example demonstrates, he did, in fact, out-debate Walter Mondale in 1984, and that made a considerable difference.
And what about Reagan in 1980? Douthat left that one out, but I remember. On the eve of that election, one could accurately have said what Douthat said about 2012 on Sunday: “Conservatives may want catharsis, but the rest of the public seems to mainly want reassurance.” And Reagan managed to provide both catharsis and reassurance when he asked, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
In any case, if you want evidence that the debates matter, you need only consider the trajectory followed by Rick Perry, not to mention the rise in succession of Michele Bachmann (who shone in the first debate), Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich. There is nothing peculiar about the Republicans in this regard. Americans in general respond positively to candidates who are well-spoken. They find it, in fact, reassuring.
Douthat might have avoided the trap into which he fell had he paused to consider the 1994 Senatorial election in Massachusetts. Early on, Mitt Romney led Ted Kennedy in the polls. The trial of William Kennedy Smith three years before for a rape putatively committed on Holy Saturday in the wake of a Good Friday visit to the bars in Palm Beach, Florida with his Uncle Ted had brought back memories of Chappaquidick. But the old liberal lion won handily in the end. How did he do it? He stomped Romney in the debates.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
"What about Reagan in 1980," Paul writes. "Douthat left that one out, but I remember."
So do I.
Until that debate, held one week before the election, the race remained tight and uncertain, the polls showing Carter ahead, then Reagan, then Carter. Only after the debate--immediately afterwards, polls indicated--did undecided voters embrace Reagan, enabling him to win in a landslide.
Paul Rahe, right again. Debates matter.
Edited on December 14, 2011 at 5:16pmJun '10
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
They matter to the people that matter to the public, like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Most you can say.
Sep '10
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
American voters first look to see if someone gives off the "weird" vibe during a debate. Al Gore lost the 2000 debates because he changed personalities for all 3 debates, and even his apologies for his Steroid Al routine (remember him bumping into GWB) confirmed to a plurality of voters that Al was a strange duck.
Beyond that, they're open to be persuaded by someone who can distill the difference down to one or two memorable phrases. Reagan did that: "There you go again" (1980)
"Are you better off than you were four years ago?" (1980)
Newt's problem will be containing the superlatives, the ego, and the paragraphs if he makes it to the general.
Edited on December 14, 2011 at 5:31pmMay '10
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
My take is slightly more ambivalent. Sometimes debates matter and sometimes they don't- in most cases for differing reasons most often related to cosmetics.
Ross is half right about 1984- if you read the newspapers on the mnorning after the first debate, Mondale won going away and President Reagan was a tired old man, slowing down and showing his age. In the second debate, the Gipper got in the line about Mondale's youth and inexperience- a clear response to the commentariat- and flew from there to a sound victory.
And Gore did win on glibness points and lose on cosmetics, while Kerry had much better press after the first 2004 debate, though Bush held his own.
The real question is why debates matter. To committed partisans and policy wonks who digest all of the words, the words are central; e.g., Nixon far outscored Kennedy.
To the public at large, they most often provide the reinforcement or reassurance regarding the one critical question. For example- was JFK a lightweight, or did he show reasonable credibility? Was Obama able to hold his own with McCain? Was Bush dumb as he had been portrayed, or did he understand policy?
Sep '10
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
And, channeling EJ Hill, this race has become:
Brain & Co. versus Bain & Co.
Mar '11
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
I will defend Ross Douthat (whose argument could have perhaps been better formulated).
He is not arguing that debates do not matter at all, but rather that the debating skills which certain candidates (such as John Kerry and Newt Gingrich) possess are not as beneficial as one might believe.
I think Douthat would fully agree with Prof. Rahe's statement that
which is exactly the point: the characteristics which make Gingrich a good debater may not play well in front of a national crowd. He may run didactical circles around Obama, but if he comes off as aloof, condescending or professorial that strength could turn into a liability.
May '11
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
Remember the vice-presidential debate in 1992? Admiral Stockdale began by asking in a strange mumbling fashion "Who am I and Why am I here?" and then proceeded to demonstrate that he didn't have an answer for the questions.It was the worst debate performance in history but strangely when I actually read the printed transcript the next day, much of it made sense. The problem with debates is that style seems to count for more than substance.
Jul '10
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
I'm not sure about debates but do believe that inability to speak articulately, forcefully about issues has hurt Republicans and, in fact, hurt the country. I believe that Newt's surge has sprung from him being the best at clarifying the failings of the President and proposing alternatives. McCain failed to press Obama, and W, as much as I respect him, also suffered from an inability to be articulate.
One of Lincoln's many strengths was his articulate, close reasoning, in addition to his soaring rhetoric. These provided a moral foundation that sustained the country and still sustain.
Sep '10
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
The Saturday Night Live parodies of the 1992 debates (and campaign in general) were hysterically funny.
Sep '10
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
I would argue that debates matter more and more and pundits matter less and less. I don't have time to read everything and I find myself gravitating to places like Ricochet to see what the community thinks. I may not agree with Frozen Chosen (did I spell that right?), but I have the utmost respect for his opinion. In these comment threads, I've gotten to know him in a way.
When you guys tell us that Ann Coulter or George Will is yelling about something, I just shrug my shoulders and wonder why I should listen to them. I'm sure they're nice people and know the Beltway crowd, but I'm not impressed by that. Southern Pessimist has an opinion, too and he's got all kinds of real world experience and education. Why doesn't he get the same weight as Glenn Beck?
The debates provide data points for our conversations. More than the candidates' websites, they show us how these people behave in dynamic situations. They give us a chance to have weightier conversations.
We listen to the debates, discuss them and then talk about it with our friends at home. Important? You bet!
Dec '11
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
Yes. How can it not? Its the dry run for the Bully Pulpit.
Mar '11
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
Having once run for city council and participated in a few debates (and lost the election), I can at least speak to what I did wrong; I didn't control the topic. I know this seems obvious, but obvious answers and tactics have a way of escaping a debate participant. In any conversation, the person asking the questions is in control. The one answering can regain control by answering a question with a question or challenging the premise of his opponent or moderator. Lincoln succeeded by framing the topic such that Douglass had no clear exit (politicians love clear exits). Newt succeeds by skillfully challenging faulty premises.
Campaigns, in general, succeed when they control the conversation among the electorate. This is one reason it is so difficult to defeat an incumbent in a local election. Unless there is something that residents are angry about, and focused on, they aren't likely to show up to the polls for off-year elections, (favoring the incumbent) or be inclined to change during major elections (favoring the incumbent). If the electorate isn't mad about something the political challenger will often try to find a reason for them to get mad...
Mar '11
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
...often appearing to flail wildly as they do so. As I said earlier, these things are too obvious when watching debates, but require a very specific skill set to accomplish as a participant.
Edited on December 14, 2011 at 7:19pmApr '11
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
Peter Robinson: "What about Reagan in 1980," Paul writes. "Douthat left that one out, but I remember."
So do I.
Until that debate, held one week before the election, the race remained tight and uncertain, the polls showing Carter ahead, then Reagan, then Carter. Only after the debate--immediately afterwards, polls indicated--did undecided voters embrace Reagan, enabling him to win in a landslide.
Paul Rahe, right again. Debates matter. ·
Douthat raises that debate, and Paul quotes him. Before my time (and his), but I find his claim Reagan didn't demolish Carter with energetic brilliance, but with relaxed authority. In the debates where commenters argue with Douthat, they actually make s similar claim; Bush's advantage over Gore and Kerry was that he wasn't a weird professorial type.
I'm not sure that Mitt or Newt are great at that, and I think that the arrogant, shallow, dismissiveness and refusal to engage that so helped Bush and Reagan is kind of an Obama strong point. Obama's good at using short words, avoiding going into the weeds on policy, and condescending to his debate opponent. Ironically, Perry might be the best of the field. Just not "on points".
Apr '11
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
Just as an example, "you forgot Poland" was wildly entertaining to many kids precisely because it was a rare failure of Bush to avoid trying to win on points. Can anyone imagine Newt or Mitt managing to restrain themselves from similar outbursts?
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
Nest, no; Romney, maybe. The latter is not always disciplined, but sometimes, maybe even most of the time, he is.
There is one good thing about the Republican debates. There is a learning curve. Rick Perry has gotten better, for one.
Dec '11
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
Why should we pay any attention to Ross Douthat and Ramesh Ponnuru? They're just two young guys - 32 and 37, respectively - whose entire life experience consists of emerging from the Ivy League directly into punditry.
True, Ponnuru writes for National Review, but it's not the National Review it used to be. And it's well known that Ponnuru holds a grudge against Newt Gingrich because Newt is insufficiently doctrinaire with regard to stem-cell research, a Ponnuru obsession.
As for Douthat, he feeds at the trough of The New York Times. He's little more than David Brooks with a scraggly beard.
Jun '10
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
Paul A. Rahe
Nest, no; Romney, maybe. The latter is not always disciplined, but sometimes, maybe even most of the time, he is.
There is one good thing about the Republican debates. There is a learning curve. Rick Perry has gotten better, for one.
The learning curve issue is important -- Perry might pick up in the polls if he keeps it up and makes more good ads.
Isn't it interesting to admit: both Clinton and Obama are highly disciplined people. They really are. This isn't easy and they both seem to keep from going over the edge. Obama is some kind of sociopath and that helps him greatly. But, considering Clinton's more passionate nature, it is interesting to see how well he kept on message and was seldom derailed.
The reason for this: the media has always been their friends -- in the main.
Our guys are frantically batting down memes each day.
Jun '10
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
Nobody's Perfect: Why should we pay any attention to Ross Douthat and Ramesh Ponnuru? They're just two young guys - 32 and 37, respectively - whose entire life experience consists of emerging from the Ivy League directly into punditry.
True, Ponnuru writes for National Review, but it's not the National Review it used to be. And it's well known that Ponnuru holds a grudge against Newt Gingrich because Newt is insufficiently doctrinaire with regard to stem-cell research, a Ponnuru obsession.
As for Douthat, he feeds at the trough of The New York Times. He's little more than David Brooks with a scraggly beard. · Dec 14 at 3:22pm
I have always liked Ponuru until this pro-Romney, anti-Newt phase. But, I haven't read him a lot, I have to admit.
Douthat is really looking to be a good choice by the NYT for their RINO stable. Really, it's just a RINO stable of one -- because Brooks is really a liberal and he most likely voted for Obama -- he certainly sent a lot of voters his way.
Aug '10
Re: Do the Presidential Debates Matter?
Paul A. Rahe
The fact that the proud father of Romneycare fooled Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin (not to mention the folks at National Review) in 2008 tells us more about them and about their visceral dislike at that time for John McCain than about Romney himself.
Today, one of the most important issues is the repeal of Obamacare. Romney is singularly unqualified to lead that fight. In 2008, Romneycare was a complete irrelevancy, because there was no such thing as Obamacare.