Over the years I have been watching with fascination the election debates by American politicians. In the past the rulers were selected (or elected themselves ) by the size of their army or by winning battles - which showed their ability to strategize, lead, fight and win. Then as the world began to turn democratic, in most countries, the party which wins the majority of seats in the parliament elect their own leader. In the the United States because of its unique electoral system, while the majority of the states vote by party, it now becomes a game of wooing the small percentage of people classified as " undecided". Over the months as the election fever builds up, both party candidates now funded by huge election war chests, supplemented by the Political Action Committees ( known as the Super PAC's) spend hundred of millions if not billions of dollars in slinging dirt and attacking each other. At times it gets extremely personal. The climax is in the form of the Presidential debates - the vice presidential debates are a side show and the warm up act.
The debates, especially the town hall format, where the debaters walk around,remind me of the World Wrestling Federation wrestlers circling each other and going through the jousting, which everyone knows is an act. At the end the candidates, joined by their families smile and exchange some pleasantries to show that they are nice people. Deep inside both of them are probably cursing the sob for having caught you on the defensive.
After the debate the political pollsters, of which the United States has no shortage, supported by the pundits and fact checkers highlight the sound bites, which help "the undecided"make up their mind as to which candidates misrepresented facts and performed better overall.
The debates, especially the town hall format, where the debaters walk around,remind me of the World Wrestling Federation wrestlers circling each other and going through the jousting, which everyone knows is an act. At the end the candidates, joined by their families smile and exchange some pleasantries to show that they are nice people. Deep inside both of them are probably cursing the sob for having caught you on the defensive.
After the debate the political pollsters, of which the United States has no shortage, supported by the pundits and fact checkers highlight the sound bites, which help "the undecided"make up their mind as to which candidates misrepresented facts and performed better overall.
The first ground breaking debate between John F.Kennedy and Richard
Milhous Nixon, helped Kennedy win. Apparently Nixon lost because his
media advisers failed to tell him what to wear, and because he did not put on make up, prior to the debate. The tanned, made up rich photogenic playboy, war hero would probably have won without even uttering a word.This set the trend and for some debates there are memorable lines such as Lloyd Bensten put down of Dan Quale " Senator - you're no Jack Kennedy" or Ronald Regan's sly quip to Walter Mondale when questioned about his age ( 73 vs Mondale's 56) " "I want you to know also I will not make age an issue of this
campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's
youth and inexperience."
If you believe the media which most people do as you often hear " according to the New York Times" or " The Times of India " or "CNN says " elections have been won on the basis of sharp comebacks such as Regan's or by their interpretation of body language. George Bush Sr. supposedly lost the chance for a second term because he looked at his watch during the debate. This apparently implied that he was uncomfortable. Al Gore lost the vote of " the undecided "because of his sighs and the rolling of his eyes implying his superiority or dismisal of George Bush Jr answers to the questions.
As a neutral observer I find it hard to accept that " the undecided " would make up their mind and vote for a particular candidate because he came up with a smart aleck retort, or by his body language during the debate . To me it is insulting . I would vote for a candidate based on his track record as a President ( if he is running for re-election) or his other relevant experience if he up for the first time. After all running a country is much more complex than running a company no matter how large it is, yet we do not have debates between a short list of candidates to be the Chief Executive of Citigroup or Coca Cola or Pfizer.
I have to use one of Al Gore's quotes from the 1992 debate, to assume that a particular candidate won an election because of his track record rather than because he was quick on the comeback. “George Bush taking credit for the Berlin Wall
coming down is like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.”
