Skip to main content

Presidential Debates and the Lincoln-Douglas Template


Presidential debates are important, but they may not decide elections.

It has been generally conceded that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won his first debate with incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama. The second debate is not a “debate’ in the Lincoln-Douglas sense of the term. It has been billed as a “town hall meeting” that pivots on questions taken from the audience, a format more nearly like a press conference, the audience playing the part of news interrogators.

The first Obama-Romney debate followed a similar format featuring a real reporter who failed to satisfy the modest expectations of the Obama camp: Any interrogation that does not result in a clear victory for Obama is by definition defective. In political contests it is fatal to attribute the loss of a debate to defects in the debator.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates were quite different, chiefly because the debaters, Lincoln more often than Douglas, shaped the format. The media of the day, highly partisan, was content to record the debates, the Republican press burnishing Lincoln’s remarks and the Democratic press touching up Douglas’ remarks to his benefit.

Lincoln and Douglas were not presented with questions formulated by reporters. The matter of the debates was shaped by the contestants themselves and the pressing events of the day – most especially the question whether slavery should be permitted in the territories, nascent states of the future the destiny of which was to be decided by a bitterly divided national legislature.

Lincoln was especially adept at constructing what he supposed was a non-confrontational narrative on the subject of slavery, a via media that at first seemed to bridge differences: Slavery would be permitted in the states where it existed, but not in the territories. In the service of his argument, Lincoln enlisted the Declaration of Independence and what he supposed to be the founder’s understanding of America’s “peculiar institution.” Ultimately, the slavery issue was decided by bayonets and bullets, the final bloody resolution staged on the battlefields of Antietam and Gettysburg.

And so, while the issue of slavery and the preservation of the union was decided at last in Lincoln’s favor, it should be recalled that Douglas won the 1858 senatorial election. According to the modern view, who wins the election – by whatever means, foul or fair – is the winner of the debate. Douglas therefore “won” the debates, even though historic events later vindicated Lincoln’s vision.

There are some enduring lessons to be learned from the Lincoln-Douglas debates that do apply to modern times.

The media of Lincoln’s day achieved a partisan balance because the partisan force exerted by newspapers, little more than party organs, was evenly distributed. Lincoln and Douglas did not shrink from a vigorous discussion of issues certainly more inflammatory than the pressing issues of our day. And neither Lincoln nor Douglas sought to retreat behind a convenient rhetorical shield often utilized in our day by incumbents; namely, that a public discussion of a particular issue may so adversely impact policy that it should not be ventilated in public campaigns. Every incumbent politician seeks to withdraw from public debate issues most harmful to his re-election, and every challenger worth his salt seeks to exploit them.

Finally, it should never be far from our minds that the pull of events, far more than public oratory, determines the destiny of nations. Events on the ground, far more than oratorical contests, will shape the destiny of the United States as it moves into a century of strife and challenge.

The future is never entirely clear. We see it in present events through a glass, darkly. But the red flags of the future are all around us: a weak economy; a resurgent Islam; the marginalization of institutional moral authorities such as the family, the church, the school and voluntary charitable organizations; the near collapse of maintenance government, as opposed to illiberal, authoritarian schemes of government that diminish the force and liberty of men and women of good will.

Transported into the 21st century, Lincoln, the nation’s apostle of liberty, might have added something worthwhile to our enduring national debate concerning liberty.



 

Comments

peter brush said…
it should be recalled that Douglas won the 1858 senatorial election.
---------------------------------
Also to be remembered that Douglas was not elected by the folks at large, but by the legislature.
Says to me that quality of campaign not dependent on maximum democratic processes.

Popular posts from this blog

The PURA soap opera continues in Connecticut: Business eyeing the exit signs

The trouble at PURA and the two energy companies it oversees began – ages ago, it now seems – with the elevation of Marissa Gillett to the chairpersonship of Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulation Authority.   Connecticut Commentary has previously weighed in on the controversy: PURA Pulls The Plug on November 20, 2019; The High Cost of Energy, Three Strikes and You’re Out? on December 21, 2024; PURA Head Butts the Economic Marketplace on January 3, 2025; Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA on February 3, 2025; and Lamont’s Pillow Talk on February 22, 2025:   The melodrama full of pratfalls continues to unfold awkwardly.   It should come as no surprise that Gillett has changed the nature and practice of the state agency. She has targeted two of Connecticut’s energy facilitators – Eversource and Avangrid -- as having in the past overcharged the state for services rendered. Thanks to the Democrat controlled General Assembly, Connecticut is no l...

The Murphy Thingy

It’s the New York Post, and so there are pictures. One shows Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy canoodling with “Courier Newsroom publisher Tara McGowan, 39, last Monday by the bar at the Red Hen, located just one mile north of Capitol Hill.”   The canoodle occurred one day or night prior to Murphy’s well-advertised absence from President Donald Trump’s recent Joint Address to Congress.   Murphy has said attendance at what was essentially a “campaign rally” involving the whole U.S. Congress – though Democrat congresspersons signaled their displeasure at the event by stonily sitting on their hands during the applause lines – was inconsistent with his dignity as a significant part of the permanent opposition to Trump.   Reaching for his moral Glock Murphy recently told the Hartford Courant that Democrat Party opposition to President Donald Trump should be unrelenting and unforgiving: “I think people won’t trust you if you run a campaign saying that if Donald Trump is ...

Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA

Marissa P. Gillett, the state's chief utility regulator, watches Gov. Ned Lamont field questions about a new approach to regulation in April 2023. Credit: MARK PAZNIOKAS / CTMIRROR.ORG Concerning a suit brought by Eversource and Avangrid, Connecticut’s energy delivery agents, against Connecticut’s Public Utility Regulatory Agency (PURA), Governor Ned Lamont surprised most of the state’s political watchers by affecting surprise.   “Look,” Lamont told a Hartford Courant reporter shortly after the suit was filed, “I think it is incredibly unhelpful,” Lamont said. “Everyone is getting mad at the umpires.   Eversource is not getting everything they want and they are bringing suit. It was a surprise to me. Nobody notified me. I think we have to do a better job of working together.”   Lamont’s claim is far less plausible than the legal claim made by Eversource and Avangrid. The contretemps between Connecticut’s energy distributors and Marissa Gillett , Gov. Ned Lamont’s ...