stratfor | A debate is not about policy. It is impossible to state a coherent
policy on any complex matter in 90 seconds. The debates between Lincoln
and Steven Douglas did go far in that direction, but then it wasn't on
national television, and it was for senator of Illinois, not the
presidency. That left room for contemplation. It should be remembered
that prior to the Kennedy-Nixon race of 1960, there were no debates,
partly because there was no television and partly, perhaps, because the
ability to debate was not seen as the appropriate measure of a
president.
Debates test one thing: the ability to quickly respond to questions
of numbing complexity that are impossible to answer in the time
available. They put a premium on being fast and clever but don't say
much about how smart a candidate is. Nor are they meant to, in part
because being smart, in an academic sense, is not essential to be
president -- as many have demonstrated. At their best, debates test a
candidate's coolness under pressure and ability to articulate some
thought at least vaguely connected to the question while convincing the
viewers that you are both personable and serious.
That is, after all, what leadership is about. We have had enormously
intelligent presidents who simply couldn't lead. Here, I think of
Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, both of whom had substantial and
demonstrable intellects but neither of whom, when confronted by the
disastrous, could rapidly contrive both a response and a commanding and
reassuring presence in the public. In that sense, their intellects
betrayed them. Each wanted the right answer, when what was needed was a
fast one. Each was succeeded by someone who could provide a fast answer.
FDR's famous first 100 days did not solve the Depression, but they did
give the sense that someone was in charge. FDR and Ronald Reagan could
reassure the country that they knew what they were doing while they
rapidly tried things that might or might not have worked.
The question of who won Monday's debate is, therefore, not one that a
viewer who spends his time focused on foreign policy can answer. The
candidates weren't speaking to those who make their livings involved in
or watching foreign affairs. Nor can we possibly extract from the debate
what either candidate intends to do in foreign policy, because that was
not what they were trying to do. They were trying to show how quickly
and effectively they could respond to the unexpected, and that they were
leaders in the simplest sense of being both likeable and commanding,
which is the incredibly difficult combination the republic demands of
its presidents.
Technology's Impact
It is important to remember that for most of our history there were
no televisions and no debates. Knowledge of the candidates filtered
through speeches and letters. The distance between the president and the
public was even greater than today. In a sense, the imperial presidency
-- the president as first among equals of the three branches of
government -- really began with FDR, who used radio brilliantly. But
there were no debates or public press conferences in which to challenge
him.
The distance collapsed with television and rapid-fire interplays, yet
at the same time increased in another way, as the president became the
most public and pseudo-known character in government. I say pseudo-known
because, in fact, the president's greatest skill lies in revealing
himself selectively, in a way and to the extent that it enhances his
power.
What could be sensed in debates were things like meanness of spirit,
ability to listen, willingness to improvise and ultimately, there was a
chance to look for humor and good will. There was also a danger. The
debate put a premium on articulateness, but it is not clear that the
well-spoken candidate -- or at least the candidate who could speak most
clearly most quickly -- also thought more clearly. There are many people
who think clearly but speak slowly while acting quickly. They are not
meant for Bob Schieffer or Candy Crowley's meat grinder.
0 comments:
Post a Comment