The renowned essayist from New Yorker, Roger Angell, at the age of 101 in September 2020, put pen to paper to craft a concise and impactful account following the presidential face-off between incumbent president Donald Trump and his opponent, Joe Biden. Angell found his thoughts drifting back to the night of Monday, 26 September 1960, when he and his spouse permitted their 12-year-old daughter, Callie, to stay awake beyond her bedtime to witness the TV debate between John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon.
“Of course, she was utterly captivated, while my wife and I endeavoured to envision her emotions as she grasped the fact that she was engaged in a complex, historic, fundamentally American occasion. I can’t recall a spoken exchange from that moment, rather I am touched by our unspoken shared sentiments,” he went on to say.
This beautifully poignant note encapsulates the essence of the now obsolete notion of a shared live television experience. It is now only national or international sports events that command families’ attention to the TV screen, or unify all gazes in the pub towards the TV, with millions simultaneously engaged in the same event. And still, it is distorted by the countless manipulations and fractionalisation of social media.
However, disappointment was the core of Angell’s statement. He termed the 2020 display as being ‘monstrously destroyed’ due to Trump’s behaviour during the debate, adding, “We can no longer be certain that the cherished protocol and process will ever see a revival.”
Having passed away in May 2022 when another presidential rematch seemed improbable, Angell wouldn’t see the reality of Thursday when Biden aged 81 and Trump aged 78 convene for yet another TV debate at CNN’s Atlanta studios. The guidelines are so stringent that they border on cheerless: no live audience, no disruptions, moderators holding reign over the microphones. Additionally, Robert Kennedy Jr’s intense efforts to meet the set parameters fell short, thereby removing that unpredictable element from the main contenders.
However, numerous concerns over the current state of presidential debates continue to surface, noting that the event has evolved into a disagreeable play-acting. There is a growing realization amongst the American public who are no longer uplifted by these political appearances, but rather feel fatigue from the inundation of predictions and the election of two seasoned political contenders. The commonality the two candidates appear to retain is an unyielding confidence in their political endurance.
What can either candidate utter that has not already been iterated numerous times by any interested individual? How many will observe? Can it impact the final result of the election? And maybe the critical inquiry is whether the American viewers who tune in do so intending to evaluate each candidate’s mental and physical sturdiness?
“We could ponder on that,” Audrey Haynes, a prominent associate professor of political science at the University of Georgia, known for her research on presidential elections, states, “Non-partisan viewers would likely agree that both are elderly and occasionally forget names, mispronounce, or trip over their words. There is substantial evidence to show that neither is in a position to run a marathon, however, both the Trump campaign and others frequently bring up Biden’s age.
“One of our finest presidents [Franklin Roosevelt] was also elderly and had a crippling disease that rendered him immobile. FDR’s condition was carefully hidden from the public, especially during the stressful wartime. Despite his discomfort, he worked strenuously. Neither Trump nor Biden can be compared to him, but the idea that an older person is less capable or lacks the energy to lead as a president is merely an offensive strategy.”
Trump took the opportunity at a Wisconsin rally this week to amplify his frequent depiction of Biden as old and confused. Biden’s responses to the age issue fluctuate between self-deprecating humour and heated outrage. Recently, a slickly edited social media clip that seemed to depict the president in moments of doubt or abstraction during formal settings faced criticism as manipulated by Democratic advocates. Haynes emphasizes that age scrutiny isn’t novel in this political climate and predates the civil war.
[It hurts when the truth is called out by Donald Trump, Bill Maher points this out frequently.]
“It’s not unheard of for public figures to endure age-related criticism,” highlights the speaker. She elaborates with a historical example of the first ‘publicised’ American hopeful, William Henry Harrison. Widely advertised as a heroic figure who emerged from humble beginnings, the truth was quite contrasted. Far from a man of the people, he was of affluent upbringing and his military experience was limited to the Battle of Tippecanoe. Yet, his involvement in this battle was greatly exaggerated to enhance his appeal. Meanwhile, his opponent in the 1840 election, Martin Van Buren, the current president, was given the derogatory moniker of ‘Martin Van Ruin’, alluding to the failing economy under his leadership. He too was mocked as being an old man.
These strategies are timeless but with technological advances, today’s slander can reach personal devices with an array of carefully constructed images: Trump clad in a prison jumpsuit or Biden appearing frail and confused. A recent example, being a video from a G7 meeting, deceptively edited to show Biden wandering off, comes to mind. Instead of highlighting his friendliness and affinity for the military personnel present, the video was manipulated to cast doubts on his mental health in relation to his age.
Prospective voters will have a chance to witness both candidates in a neutral environment during Thursday’s debate, without the need to perform for a live audience. Joseph Watson, currently a professor at the University of Georgia and former member of George W Bush’s administration, recalls the nerves leading up to the 2004 debate. He emphasises that though publicly inevitable, behind the scenes, election races are taken seriously. His experience serving in the Bush administration taught him that winning the election was never a certain outcome.
Among the multitude of enduring sayings coined during his double four-year tenure, former president George W. Bush’s term “misunderestimated” is perhaps the most well-known. This phrase proved handy when it came to debates, providing a means of turning low expectations into an advantage. Notably, contenders for the upcoming 2024 election might find themselves in a similar situation.
The potential downfall for Joe Biden could come in the form of a slip or lapse in speech. However, it’s noteworthy that Biden and Trump have previously faced each other in debates. At that time, Trump was considered the loser. Before the debate, people largely spoke of a detached and resting Biden. Yet, when the debate occurred, it was Trump who found himself at the disadvantage. Therefore, as per the lesson from the phrase of my former leader, there can be merit to being underestimated.
According to Watson, Democrat strategy makers are quietly optimistic about Biden’s ability to display competence and authority, as demonstrated in his State of Union address in March. This effectively silenced significant doubts about his suitability for the position. Simply managing to avoid verbal or physical errors, Watson elaborates, is not the pinnacle of their ambition for Democrats.
“I don’t truly believe that is their final objective. Of course, it does introduce risk, but they are sufficiently confident in his ability to stage an impactful one-hour performance. A keen observer may find their strategy intriguing; they’ve made a major advertising investment before the debate. This unusual move is seen even before the convention has taken place. It partly springs from their financial advantage, but also they have a detailed plan. Their ploy is to unsettle Trump, making him lose self-control and stray from his message. He’s so far maintained disciplined behaviour throughout the campaign, but their primary goal is to make him deviate from his script. If they can make the debate revolve around the negative aspects of his prosecution or other downsides, it would mean a massive triumph for them.”
Calculating the enduring worthiness of a victory is rarely straightforward. The renowned debate between Kennedy and Nixon serves as the perfect example of the significance of good presentation. Kennedy’s Hyannis bronzed glow was evident even amidst the blurred black-and-white footage, transmitting a sense of health and vigour. In contrast, Nixon was seen as uncomfortable and sweaty, yet intriguingly, those tuning into the radio felt he had performed strongly. The polls from Gallup suggest that in 1980, John Anderson, a candidate from a third party, suffered a significant drop – from 15 percent to 8 percent – following his showdown with Ronald Reagan. Fast forward to 1992, independent player Ross Perot experienced a jump in popularity from 10 percent to 17 percent after his debate appearances.
Both Lyndon Johnson, sitting president in 1964, and Nixon, who was Republican candidate in 1968 and president in 1972, opted not to engage in debates. The George W. Bush-Al Gore face-offs, closely watched during the 2000 election, resulted in diverse opinions after each debate. For example, data from the third debate indicated that Gore had a narrow 2 percent advantage, but 57 percent of people felt that he communicated his ideas more effectively. However, in terms of the elusive “likability” factor, Bush dominated, with 60 percent liking him compared to Gore’s 31 percent.
Looking back at past debates, one notices the superficial civility demonstrated between adversaries. One memorable moment from the vice-presidential debate of 1988, for instance, witnessed Senator Dan Quayle comparing his youthful vigour to that of JFK, setting up his opponent, Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen, for a scathing comeback, stating “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
The response was elegantly cutting, presenting a stark contrast to the acrimonious back-and-forths seen in recent debates. Despite Obama’s well-practiced eloquence, his dismissively cordial jibe at Hillary Clinton in their 2008 primary debate – “You’re likable enough, Hillary” – left a sour taste. The acerbic animosity between candidates in recent times will once again be plainly displayed this Thursday. In Watson’s words, the aggressive stance taken by both parties could make for highly engaging viewing.
The United States is rejoicing in its summer season, with the general public largely engaged in outdoor activities and the upcoming election is seen as a concern for the winter months. According to Watson, Atlanta being the chosen location for the debate isn’t random, considering Georgia’s vital role in a closely contested election race. He commented, “Georgia traditionally leans Republican, yet it has recently favoured Democratic senators, plus Biden in the past race. Republicans must operate effective campaigns here, otherwise, they risk defeat.”
In what may be an overestimation of the public’s interest, CNN is showcasing a countdown to the debate date. However, it is expected that viewers will tune in out of routine when the time comes. Haynes expressed scepticism regarding the ability of either participant effectively presenting an alternate viewpoint, stating that we have witnessed this debate before with unimpressive results.
A unique aspect of this debate is that the audience, notably the viewing public, will not hear heated accusations or controversial statements during the speaking turn of the other candidate, due to strict mic control by the moderators. This makes it less probable for statements like “Will you shut up, man” by Biden.
The debate is scheduled for Thursday, 27th June, at 9pm US Eastern Time which corresponds to 2am on Friday in Ireland. A repeat telecast of the debate will be aired by CNN international between 7am and 7pm Irish time on Friday, 28th June.