The debates
The debates
Updated 11:36pm (Mla time) Oct 17, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 18, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
ONE last look at the American presidential debates, before the last two weeks of the nastiest US election season in memory overwhelm the rest of the world in millions of dollars of negative advertising.
It is now commonplace, except in some hard-core Republican websites and in parts of the Fox News Network, to say that Sen. John F. Kerry of the Democrats won all three of the debates. Even going by the Republicans' ridiculously low expectations of US President George W. Bush especially in the third debate, the incumbent did not do well at all.
The result is reflected in the surveys of the last three weeks. Before the first debate, Kerry was behind by as much as double-digits. After the first one, the numbers began to tighten. By the end of the third debate last week, the presidential contest was-in the racing language appropriated by the polling firms-a dead heat.
But we think Kerry was only the second biggest winner in the debates. By far the bigger winner was the tradition of debate itself.
As story after story in the US media noted in the run-up to the first debate, American presidential debates have become increasingly "spun." The reality of any debate-what the candidates said, how they argued, what policies or programs they presented or deconstructed-had proven inferior to perceptions about the debate. The most famous, or notorious, example: Al Gore's performance against Bush in the first debate of the 2000 election. Instant polls and the consensus of analysts were unanimous: Gore, the policy wonk, had decisively beaten Bush, the Texas cowboy.
So much for reality: Gore's theatrical sighing in the first debate-apparently to signal to the viewing public his distaste or contempt for Bush's answers-began to attract more and more attention. In a matter of weeks, media "buzz" about Gore's melodramatic sighs had reversed the results; more people perceived Bush to have won that first and most crucial round.
This year, the pre-debate stories dutifully noted the role of spin and the politics of perception. Adding into the mix the substantial lead Bush enjoyed going into the first debate and the undoubted spinning skills of Bush strategist Karl Rove, it became conventional wisdom to suggest that the debates had become nothing more than elaborate political choreography, a once-every-four-years ritual dance that didn't hold much political relevance or offer much political substance.
That notion was shot down from the very first debate.
To be sure, there was ground for all the cynicism. The rules of the debate did not promise much: the candidates were not allowed to directly pose questions to one another, the time limits were strict, only one debate featured questions from the audience, and so on.
But then small changes took place. The candidates, but especially Kerry, used their two-minute answers to address questions to one another, even if only rhetorically. The candidates, but especially Bush, could not wait for the moderator's signal before charging back with a rebuttal. Above all, the TV networks covering the event did not consider themselves bound to the candidates' agreement (pushed by the Bush campaign) to disallow two-camera shots or split-screens.
As a result of these small changes, but especially of the last, more than 60 million Americans (and we dare say millions more watching overseas) saw genuine drama unfold on screen.
The United States, we hear all too often, is a 50:50 nation, deeply divided between the conservatives whom Bush represents and the liberals who supported Gore and now support Kerry. (The reality is much more complex, as the brouhaha over Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter demonstrates.) What viewers saw in the three debates proved that strong convictions can overflow strict time limits or overtake the best-laid plans.
We think this year's three contests strengthened this laudable political tradition, not because Kerry won all of them, but because contrary to all expectations, they proved to be real debates. That allowed millions of voters to take stock of the challenger, and the political process to finally hold the incumbent accountable.
Updated 11:36pm (Mla time) Oct 17, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 18, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
ONE last look at the American presidential debates, before the last two weeks of the nastiest US election season in memory overwhelm the rest of the world in millions of dollars of negative advertising.
It is now commonplace, except in some hard-core Republican websites and in parts of the Fox News Network, to say that Sen. John F. Kerry of the Democrats won all three of the debates. Even going by the Republicans' ridiculously low expectations of US President George W. Bush especially in the third debate, the incumbent did not do well at all.
The result is reflected in the surveys of the last three weeks. Before the first debate, Kerry was behind by as much as double-digits. After the first one, the numbers began to tighten. By the end of the third debate last week, the presidential contest was-in the racing language appropriated by the polling firms-a dead heat.
But we think Kerry was only the second biggest winner in the debates. By far the bigger winner was the tradition of debate itself.
As story after story in the US media noted in the run-up to the first debate, American presidential debates have become increasingly "spun." The reality of any debate-what the candidates said, how they argued, what policies or programs they presented or deconstructed-had proven inferior to perceptions about the debate. The most famous, or notorious, example: Al Gore's performance against Bush in the first debate of the 2000 election. Instant polls and the consensus of analysts were unanimous: Gore, the policy wonk, had decisively beaten Bush, the Texas cowboy.
So much for reality: Gore's theatrical sighing in the first debate-apparently to signal to the viewing public his distaste or contempt for Bush's answers-began to attract more and more attention. In a matter of weeks, media "buzz" about Gore's melodramatic sighs had reversed the results; more people perceived Bush to have won that first and most crucial round.
This year, the pre-debate stories dutifully noted the role of spin and the politics of perception. Adding into the mix the substantial lead Bush enjoyed going into the first debate and the undoubted spinning skills of Bush strategist Karl Rove, it became conventional wisdom to suggest that the debates had become nothing more than elaborate political choreography, a once-every-four-years ritual dance that didn't hold much political relevance or offer much political substance.
That notion was shot down from the very first debate.
To be sure, there was ground for all the cynicism. The rules of the debate did not promise much: the candidates were not allowed to directly pose questions to one another, the time limits were strict, only one debate featured questions from the audience, and so on.
But then small changes took place. The candidates, but especially Kerry, used their two-minute answers to address questions to one another, even if only rhetorically. The candidates, but especially Bush, could not wait for the moderator's signal before charging back with a rebuttal. Above all, the TV networks covering the event did not consider themselves bound to the candidates' agreement (pushed by the Bush campaign) to disallow two-camera shots or split-screens.
As a result of these small changes, but especially of the last, more than 60 million Americans (and we dare say millions more watching overseas) saw genuine drama unfold on screen.
The United States, we hear all too often, is a 50:50 nation, deeply divided between the conservatives whom Bush represents and the liberals who supported Gore and now support Kerry. (The reality is much more complex, as the brouhaha over Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter demonstrates.) What viewers saw in the three debates proved that strong convictions can overflow strict time limits or overtake the best-laid plans.
We think this year's three contests strengthened this laudable political tradition, not because Kerry won all of them, but because contrary to all expectations, they proved to be real debates. That allowed millions of voters to take stock of the challenger, and the political process to finally hold the incumbent accountable.
posted by Dante at 1:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home