Reflections: Debates
Columnist and Oxford Free Press board member Allan Winkler writes that presidential debates have had a mixed impact since the 1960s.
We have now completed the cycle of debates focused on the forthcoming presidential election, and we’re still struggling to make sense of those events and understand what effect they may have on the final result.
Such political debates are not new. Though not in a presidential race, Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen A. Douglas more than 150 years ago in a contest for the Senate. The first real presidential debate took place between Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard M. Nixon in 1960.
That debate proved to be extraordinarily consequential. Nixon, as sitting Vice President, was better known and seemed to be the favorite in the race. On camera,though, while both candidates sounded articulate, the visual impact was more powerful. Kennedy seemed more relaxed, rested and confident. Nixon looked tired. He had been suffering from a staph infection and had lost weight, so his shirt looked too large. And, worst of all, his beard was covered by a light coating of Lazy Shave which only accentuated the dark stubble.
People who listened to the debate on the radio thought it was a toss-up or favored Nixon, but polls at the time showed that most voters who watched the debate on TV thought Kennedy won. In an Elmo Roper poll for CBS, 57% of the people who voted said the debate had affected their choice.
Other debates, while they haven’t had as much of an impact as in 1960, have still made a difference in elections.
In 1976, Republican incumbent Gerald Ford, up against Democrat Jimmy Carter, lost credibility when he contended that, American Cold War policy notwithstanding, there was no Communist domination in Eastern Europe.
In the debates of 1992, Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush seemed bored with the proceeding against Democrat Bill Clinton and independent challenger Ross Perot. Bush alienated some observers as the camera caught him looking at his watch.
If nothing more, the debates have highlighted the importance of media in political campaigns.
In the earlier years of the 20th century, newspapers ran accounts, and often full text, of campaign speeches. In the election of 1912, the public avidly followed the attacks of Democrat Woodrow Wilson and Bull Moose candidate Theodore Roosevelt on each other.
Then, in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt demonstrated his understanding of the importance of radio. His marvelous speeches, such as the inaugural when he asserted “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” and his Fireside Chats, changed the nature of American politics.
In the same way, Ronald Reagan showed a mastery of television which helped account for his enormous popularity.
This election has featured fewer debates than previous cycles, but those debates have without a doubt made a difference.
Perhaps most important was the halting performance of President Joe Biden in a June debate — the earliest in presidential debate history. Biden’s performance eventually led him to drop out of the race, paving the way for Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy.
Former President Donald Trump’s meandering performance against Harris in September more recently disturbed some observers.
Vice-presidential debates are usually less consequential than confrontations at the top of the ticket, but the recent debate between Republic J.D. Vance and Democrat Tim Waltz helped accentuate differences between the presidential nominees.
Debates do make a difference. They may be less important today than they were in 1960, but they still highlight what a candidate stands for, and provide the public with a sense of how a candidate responds on his or her feet.
Modern politics has become a game, a glitzy popularity contest in which the truth is often a casualty. The debates, whatever their shortcomings, provide us with an opportunity to see the candidates up close and personal for ourselves, and to see how they respond, on their feet, to issues that concern us all.
Allan Winkler is a University Distinguished Professor of History Emeritus at Miami University, where he taught for three decades. He serves on the Board of Directors for the Oxford Free Press.
