It is frequently enough said, and said even now, that debates don't affect political races. The common reference now is regarding the election of the president. But it seems to me that debates very much do, or can, change elections.
It was somewhat before my time, per se (in 1954, when I was too young to be aware of such things), that Joseph Welch, during Senate interrogations, had the following interaction with the infamous Joe McCarthy: "Until this moment, Senator, I think that I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting with what looks to be a brilliant career with us...Little did I dream that you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is still with [Welch's Boston law firm] Hale and Dorr. It is true he will continue to be with Hale and Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me." This was not a presidential debate, but it was a formal Senate hearing, with witnesses like Welch. McCarthy pressed on against Fisher, and this led Welch to say "Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers' Guild...Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" McCarthy tried to ask Fisher another question, and Welch intervened. The public who were present broke into applause, and Welch's TV performance turned the tide of the public and press overnight. McCarthy was later censured by the Senate for bringing dishonor and disrepute onto the body. The two sentences I have highlighted are widely considered to have changed the course of at least part of the rabid anti-Communist crusade at the time. And they were very consequential to McCarthy. This was not a debate in the usual sense, and certainly not a presidential debate, but it was a formal hearing, and its effect was dramatic.
In 1960, then VP Richard Nixon (VP for a very popular president for eight years) debated JFK, then a Senator. That presidential debate was televised as well. It has widely been considered that the debate, at least as much as anything else, got JFK elected. The matter was style. Nixon was obviously uncomfortable, stiff, and prone to perspiring, and Kennedy connected in a far more effective way with the public, even if they were watching on TV. He seemed encouraging and trustworthy in ways that "Tricky Dick" did not.
Those interactions were a long time ago, but many more people will remember the debate between Carter, the incumbent, and Reagan. Setting aside Reagan's slick delivery style (he was, after all, an actor), many people will remember his "there you go again" wisecrack. Carter was not assertive, and most certainly not cocky, and the fact that Reagan would diminish the president of the United States this way, in public, added to his aura. He bought himself a lot of votes with that crack.
Many years later, in 2020, Biden debated Trump, the incumbent, also on TV. Biden called Trump a "clown," twice, and told him to "shut up" once. And Biden won the election. In my opinion, Biden's ability and willingness to rub Trump's nose in excrement this way bought him votes, just as Reagan bought himself votes by showing disrespect for the incumbent president. And lest anyone think that Trump couldn't have won anyway, because he was, in fact, such a patent fool and a loser, it should not be forgotten that he got more votes in '20, after he proved himself to be a totally self-focused idiot and an inveterate liar, than he did in '16, when he just gave the public reason to have strong suspicions that he was self-focused, an idiot, and a liar.
And then, there was the '24 debate between Biden and Trump. That debate pulled away many of Biden's supporters, and knocked him out of the race. You couldn't in any way say that debate had no consequences.
As for Trump's debate against Harris, at least 2/3 of people surveyed say Harris "won" the debate. And she made some mistakes, and could have done better. But that debate assured many thus far "undecideds," and has certainly bought her considerable support. For what it's worth, several people who are very popular in the entertainment industry suddenly declared their support for Harris, and have been breathtakingly effective at encouraging their fans to register to vote.
It might be true that presidential, or primary, debates often aren't dramatically consequential. But sometimes, they most definitely are.
No comments:
Post a Comment