The View From Here . . .

With the agreement between the presidential candidates to have debates on September 30, October 8 and October 13 (plus a vice presidential debate on October 5), the campaign moves into a new phase. Here are few thoughts about debates in general and this year’s confrontations in particular.

No one will confuse the modern presidential debates with the epic matches between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in the nineteenth century. While orators of bygone eras gave lengthy, and often quite thoughtful, expositions of their beliefs, there is much more emphasis on clever sound bites, gaffes and “gotcha” moments (“I knew Jack Kennedy…”). Still, in comparison to most campaign events, there is actually quite a bit of substance exchanged by the candidates and the contrasting philosophies do seem to seep through to the voters.

Aside from the Lincoln-Douglas meeting, presidential debates are actually relatively new to the campaign schedules. I remember as a (somewhat nerdy) eight year old watching the first debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960 with my parents on our twelve inch black and white Zenith, which was actually the initial debate of the modern era. After the four 1960 debates, there were no further debates until 1976, as they were resisted by Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and by Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972. They did not resurface until 1976, but have been held in every campaign since.

From time to time, the debates can have a pretty big influence on the election. In the 1960 debates, for example Richard Nixon was hurt by his heavy beard and somewhat tired appearance. Radio listeners thought that Mr. Nixon won the first debate, but the more numerous television watchers preferred Mr. Kennedy. In 1976, President Gerald Ford made a tremendous gaffe, which may have cost him a close election, when he seemed to imply that Poland was not controlled by the Soviet Union. In contrast, in the single debate in 1980, Ronald Reagan’s genial demeanor in his confrontation with President Jimmy Carter probably won the election by allaying fears that Mr. Reagan was a dangerous warmonger. In recent years, Michael Dukakis was hurt in 1988 by his cold response to a question about an attack on his wife, President George H.W. Bush in 1992 by looking at his watch during the debate and Al Gore in 2000 by sighing too much.

For John Kerry, it is hard to overemphasize the importance of this year’s debate, and in particular the first one, which will focus on foreign policy.

Both national and state polls have shown Mr. Kerry falling behind President Bush, particularly on issues of national security. Mr. Kerry has finally seemed to settle on a position on Iraq, but it is being broadly attacked as contradicting his prior statements and not being very specific as to his future plans. Voters may, however, be willing to give Mr. Kerry one last hearing with a relatively open mind. If he makes his case, there may be increasing focus on the quality of President Bush’s judgment in invading Iraq, how well we have executed our design there and how much of relationship there is between Iraq and the war on terror. If, however, Mr. Kerry cannot persuade the viewers that he will make a credible commander in chief, this election is probably over.