Do debates
determine elections?
On occasion,
they do. Those defending the proposition that debates are determinative point
to the Nixon-Kennedy contest of 1960. And of course the Lincoln-Douglas debates
still are held up in the history books as demonstrating the political utility of vigorous
debates.
It is sometimes
forgotten by those who urge the importance of debates that Stephen Douglas, not
Abraham Lincoln, emerged the victor in their Senate contest. The
Lincoln-Douglas debates later were assembled into a book by Lincoln. Widely
distributed, the book helped him to win the presidential election of 1860. The
format of the Lincoln-Douglas debates – a 60 minute opening statement from the
first candidate, followed by an alternative 90 minute statement from the second
candidate, followed by a 30 minute rejoinder
from the first candidate --
became, with some adjustments, the template for most future political debates.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates were moderated by Lincoln and Douglas, not the
Howard K. Smiths of the pre-Civil War period.
Then too, there are those, the authoritative editors New York Times among them who, following recent studies, have concluded that “on sound points of argument” Nixon, not Kennedy, won the Nixon-Kennedy debates, though Kennedy undoubtedly was the more telegenic of the two presidential candidates. Nixon wore no makeup, was at the time suffering from the flu, had lost weight and was hobbled by a bad knee. Nixon’s dark jowls and his past history as an aggressive communist battler probably did more to shift media and public approval in Kennedy’s favor than any gaffes make by either of the presidential candidates in any of their four public debates.
Then too, there are those, the authoritative editors New York Times among them who, following recent studies, have concluded that “on sound points of argument” Nixon, not Kennedy, won the Nixon-Kennedy debates, though Kennedy undoubtedly was the more telegenic of the two presidential candidates. Nixon wore no makeup, was at the time suffering from the flu, had lost weight and was hobbled by a bad knee. Nixon’s dark jowls and his past history as an aggressive communist battler probably did more to shift media and public approval in Kennedy’s favor than any gaffes make by either of the presidential candidates in any of their four public debates.
Lincoln --
unusually tall at six foot four inches, gangling, with a high register voice – was
well aware that his optics were not favorable. When, during one of his speeches,
a heckler in the audience shouted out that Lincoln was “two-faced,” Lincoln
shot back, “If I had two faces, do you think I’d be wearing this one?”
There will
be no Lincoln or Douglas in any of Connecticut’s gubernatorial debates, and
none of the candidates – Governor Dannel Malloy on the Democratic side, State
Senator John McKinney and former ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley on the
Republican side, as well as independent candidates Jonathan Pelto and Joe
Visconti – brutalize the eye.
The question
whether there will be a sufficient number of debates has itself become a not
inconsiderable part of the gubernatorial debate season. Republican front runner
Foley has been coy about debating. Mr.
Foley has pocketed the Republican Party nomination for governor and leads all
other opposition candidates in recent polling. He can well afford to dodge
debates with lesser candidates and wait until they withdraw from the field either
from a lack of money to wage a convincing campaign or from low poll numbers
that eventually drive competitors from the race. The Republican Party primary
falls on August 12th, after which remaining Republican Party candidates can be
safely tagged as “spoilers.” Independent party candidates will escape the
invidious labeling.
The
avoidance of debates is both smart and stupid. And, be it noted, it is smart
and stupid for the same reason: In the absence of debates, a candidate need not
commit
to specific policy proposals. The Democratic Party incumbent governor, Mr.
Malloy, already has laid many of his cards on the table. His program for the future
is what he has done and failed to do during his first term as governor. Mr.
Malloy is a progressive on most social and economic issues of the day; indeed,
he is the most progressive governor in living memory, but not, Mr. Pelto often
reminds us, progressive enough on education and union matters. Mr. Malloy has
not entirely surrendered the operations of state government to powerful union
interests – not yet anyway.
A
non-committal campaign on the Republican side is both a blessing and a curse.
On the one hand, the non-committal Republican candidate may non-committally
slide through the primary season without having inflicted permanent injury upon
himself or other Republican gubernatorial contestants. The two Republican
candidates for governor, Mr. Foley and Mr. McKinney, appear to have taken to heart
former Republican President Ronald Reagan’s commandment: Love the Republican Party with thine whole
heart, mind and spirit, and love thine Republican Party neighbor as thyself.
But a
non-committal campaign – or, worse, a Republican campaigner who does not
register on the public consciousness in primaries or general elections as
distinctly different than a Democratic Party campaigner – leaves any Republican
Party gubernatorial victor without a mandate to govern. And a Republican Party
governor who slides into office unbruised in both a primary and general
election contest will, while in office, be torn to pieces by the permanent
opposition. The non-committing candidate, in other words, is the candidate whose
gubernatorial term in office will be thrown on the sacrificial alter – along
with what is left of a once vibrant state now up to its ears in rubble. Without
a clear mandate from the people, minority Republicans cannot govern; they will
become, as they have been in the past, the playthings of a superior force
majeure, as the French might say.
The French
also have another saying that ought to rest uneasily on the top of the minds of
all Republican candidates this year:
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" (the more things
change, the more they remain the same). If things in Connecticut remain the
same for even a few more years, beneficial change will have been sacrificed to
political expediency. And without courageous commitment, there can be no
beneficial change.
Comments
----
There is no need to directly attack competing Republicans, but there is a desperate need to explain in the primary what is wrong in Nutmeg-ville and what can be done about it by a Republican Governor. Foley's politically pragmatic silence resembles willing blindness or cowardice, and as noted, will not put him in good stead to deal with the ideologically driven legislature.
Thing of it is, I believe that the political expedient thing at this point in Connecticut's descent might actually include a hair-on-fire fiscal focus, if not a full-blown conservative agenda. I'll never be accused of overestimating the Connecticut electorate, but I do think a majority may be ready embrace a leader who tells the truth, who faces reality directly. Foley doesn't have to attack or even mention McKinney. He does need to say that Connecticut has a spending problem and a long term debt emergency, not mere
"chronic budget shortfalls."
Mr. Pelto won't get my vote, but he does get my appreciation, and I would hope his courage and thoughtfulness might get the emulation of a Republican candidate.
----
“The insiders have agreed that the best way to deal with Connecticut’s financial problems is to lie and mislead,” Pelto told The Mirror. “It’s a good thing that their statements aren’t made under oath, because our prisons would be full of politicians who perjured themselves by intentionally lying during the campaign.”
-----
“Working behind closed doors and without proper public and legislative review, the Malloy administration is attempting to roll out a new, and untested, State Innovation Model (SIM) that could adversely impact thousands of unsuspecting Connecticut citizens and the healthcare providers who treat them."