IT’S
ALL IN THE GAME
Last
night, the Washington National won the National League East; just two days
after the Washington Redskins beat the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the waning
seconds –- in Tampa, no less. And now we
have a Presidential debate coming up tomorrow in Denver where the early talk is
about tamping down expectations and Romney possibly being able to close the
ratings gap with the artful use of
zingers.
Can it get any better than this,
sports fans?
You may object to me lumping in the
Presidential debate with football and baseball games, but even though the
stakes are obviously much higher, these debates have taken on all the aspects
of a sporting event. Rarely are they
ever decided or even judged on substance.
In the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960,
the deciding factor was really all about perception. People who listened to the debates on radio
thought Nixon had won, but those of us watching on television gave the clear
advantage to Kennedy. JFK understood the
medium better, used makeup whereas Nixon, with his 5 o’clock shadow and his
haunted look, didn’t. Not sure there is
a makeup that could make Nixon not look dark and paranoid.
But,
as I recall, in terms of substance, the only hot issue which turned out to be a
non-issue were the islands of Quemoy and Matzu, tiny islands off the coast of
China. Remember those? Most people don’t. The point is that the debates – especially
the first one -- were mostly about perception and Kennedy’s pledge that “we can
do better” and his promise to get the U.S. moving again after the quiescent
years of the Eisenhower 1950’s.
In 1976, President Ford’s
unaccountable comment about there being “no Soviet domination of Eastern
Europe” reinforced the false and unfair impression that he was not the sharpest
knife in the drawer and helped boost Carter’s chances even though he had no
foreign relations experience.
The
Carter–Reagan debate in 1980 is remembered mostly for Reagan’s rejoinder, or a
zinger, if you will: “There he goes
again,” delivered with a classic Reagan aw-shucks turn of the head and his
winning smile. Veteran journalist Sander
Vanocur called it “devastating” and most experts believe it helped turn the
race in Reagan’s favor.
In the George H.W. Bush – Bill Clinton
debates, the most memorable moment was when President Bush looked at his watch,
as if to say, when is this nonsense going to end. Again, it was another turning point. Plus the fact that earlier in the campaign it
was reported he didn’t know the price of a quart of milk or a loaf of bread,
which pundits declared put him out of touch with the American people.
As I recall, the turning points in the
debates between George W. Bush and Al Gore and then between George W. Bush and John
Kerry hinged on the fact the Bush could hold his own against two perceived
smarter and better debaters. The fact
that Bush didn’t do anything self-destructive was enough. Again he was helped immensely by lowered
expectations.
This is what troubles me about the
Obama – Romney debate. If Romney can
avoid making a huge gaffe and holds his own, he might get a bounce coming out
of the debate. In addition, the
President has to make sure he doesn’t come across as arrogant and
dismissive. Remember Senator McCain
refusing to look at Obama, as if this amateur shouldn’t even be on the same
stage with him. Obama wouldn’t be that
rude, but he can be arrogant, and he has to make sure he doesn’t betray that
for a second even when the cameras are supposedly not focused on him.
Presidential debates are all about
show business and perception. So, don’t
expect an intellectual debate of the critical issues facing our country. Rather think of the upcoming debate as a
game, with fumbles and errors and pass interceptions. Plus trick plays and zingers.
And, remember, as with sports, the
best person or team doesn’t always win.
Gerald E.
Lavey
No comments:
Post a Comment