This is Democracy – Episode 57: Presidential Debates: Do They Matter?

Narration 0:05
This is Democracy,

a podcast that explores the interracial intergenerational and intersection of unheard voices living in the world’s most

influential democracy.

Jeremi Suri 0:20
Welcome to our new episode of This is Democracy. Today we’re going to discuss the ubiquitous presidential debates that seem to be on TV every week or so. And that will be dominating our political landscape for the next year and a half. We’re going to talk about the history of these debates, what they mean today and where we might be going with these debates, as part of our democracy as part of our democratic process. We have with us, truly probably the best person in the country to talk to about this, our colleague and friend, Professor Paul Steckler.

Paul Stekler 0:58
Welcome, Paul. Thank you. I’m glad to be here.

Jeremi Suri 1:00
Paul is the perfect person to talk about this topic with because he not only has strong opinions about this, but his research actually uniquely overlaps in both the study of politics and politics surrounding presidential campaigns, and the media coverage of them. And Paul is not only a scholar of politics and a scholar, the media, he himself is a producer of major political documentaries on George Wallace and many other major figures in American history. So to bring the media and pop political sensibility together we really well well set up today. Before we turn to Paul Of course we have Zachary seen setting poem, Zachary. What’s the title of your poem? The War of the Botox? The War of the Botox? Okay, let’s hear it. I have scoured for political tidbits in the word onslaught of British BBC at midnight, and I stayed awake on tonight seeding over the votes being counted in ocean a way that I’ve picked my candidate two years before predicted the next national conscience and beg to be able to watch Parliament while I do my homework. And when I dress for bed, I even came down in a sleepy stupor search for the results of some Israeli election like I was sleepwalking into politics. And all my friends ever watched when I asked them hopeful every day, all they ever watched was the presidential debate. And I can’t really blame them. I to know the alluring power of watching two people jab each other into dusk. I have also held some guilty satisfaction from a burning splash one way in grow men fighting a nationally televised spectacles. But I can also feel them dangerous See, in my mind, like a little notch dropping in slow motion on a pile of wood. Except the match is treating politics like a horse race, treating people’s lives like poker chips, the cash in for a lack of health care. And the pile of wood is some dust mite made up of the stars and the American flag. What are they going to do when Saturday Night Live is just like reading the newspaper when satire is useless, because it’s already a spoof. And I’m not sure who I like best between drunk on and solving race relations with record players as much as I love vinyl. And I guess it’s just a stump speech of everyone through their stumps at each other and everyone that ended up unconscious on the floor, surrounded by a pile of old tree stumps, except it’s primetime TV. And it’s the War of the Botox and the makeup brush. And that’s what politics is to too many people.

Well, so you went the satirical route this week. What is your poem about?

Zachary Suri 3:23
My problem is really about how, how modern media, particularly when it comes to debates, uh, displays both extremes and makes politics into somewhat of a sport. And in many ways, it’s something that I think many people get excited about. And there’s a certain element of of hype around it. But at the same time, we forget often what we’re really dealing with, and that’s people’s lives, and things that really affect at our country.

Jeremi Suri 3:52
Right, like policy. Yeah, exactly.

So, Paul, that seems like a great spot to turn to you. many would argue I’m sure you would agree that this sort of modern TV sports, a presidential debate, big debates begins in 1960. Right? what, how, how have these debates evolved from 1960 to this day?

Paul Stekler 4:12
Well, I’m trying to remember if there’s anything after 1960. I mean, of course, the classic example is Nixon versus Kennedy. Right. And, you know, political scientists would say the most interesting thing about that particular debate was that, according to what I’ve read, the people that actually listened to the debate, thought the Nixon one, right, and the people that saw the debate thought that Kennedy won, right? Kennedy was a good looking guy is very charismatic. Nixon’s makeup wasn’t working so well. He had a five o’clock shadow and he was perspiring. And so is this the first nail on the coffin of American politics, where you’re giving individuals and TV and you know, and the making of the American President Teddy White’s book in 1960? Yes. Now, the thing that interesting about this is I don’t remember there being debates in 1964, in 1968, in 1972, I think the next presidential debate was Carter vs. Ford and 76. So it wasn’t as if, I mean, there was no reason for, for LBJ to debate Goldwater to win that election anyway. I don’t remember there being a Humphrey Nixon debate, because they would have had to included George Wallace, you know, and why would Deke Nixon want to debate McGovern, when he was about to swap them in the election?

Jeremi Suri 5:30
Certainly the next set of debates we talked about or Ford Carter? Sure. You said Yeah.

Paul Stekler 5:34
And the only thing that people remember about those debates is that Gerald Ford slipped up and said that Poland was free, you know, which is an obviously obvious split, you know, or mistake, and people say, well, that hurt them in the debate. The only analysis I’ve heard, and again, I don’t know what the statistics actually are, is that it slowed his momentum. And as you know, if the election gone on another day or two, Ford may, or may well have beaten Carter, right, because it was such as the close election, especially in Ohio. So, you know, those that’s that’s the debates, the you know, the the big debate moment, that I remember is 1980 Hmm. And that election, you know, essentially was Carter’s to lose in a certain point, there had been a tipping point where people would stop listening to him, be it, the Malays speech with a sweater, you know, the the taking of the hostages, you know, but people kept saying, well, Reagan’s too conservative Reagan, you can’t trust him, you know, he’s just too far out there. And then the entire country is watching him debate, Jimmy Carter, and he didn’t seem all that that on, you know, on presidential at all. And Carter finishes off with talking about a conversation he had with his daughter, Amy, about nuclear war. And I think that was the final nail in the coffin. And as I recall, Carter was ahead in the polls a little bit, and just the bottom dropped out those last few days. And it was a Reagan landslide. And he took all kinds of icons of the Democratic Senate with them. So, you know, that was in a important debate, obviously, you know, and then we go to 1984. And you begin to have this pattern of incoming presidents who do badly in the first debates, right. You know, Reagan versus Mondale, he looked, he looked all he looked like he was forgetting and he comes back in the second debate, he makes the, you know, jokes about it. In 1988, what do we remember about the bush Dukakis debates? The very first question asking Michael Dukakis, what would happen if his wife was raped and murdered? And the the real response would have been, how dare you ask me a question like that? It’s Mike Dukakis. And so he tried to answer the question badly, and, you know,

Jeremi Suri 7:41
didn’t show very much emotion. He seemed not to care very much. I

Paul Stekler 7:44
just it was, you know, was Mike the caucus, you know, and maybe, you know, debates bring out, you know, who you are, or whatever, it’s, you know, 1992, you know, very important having perot there. And remember, the George Bush, the elder looks at his watch during the debate. And I believe he couldn’t answer how much a loaf of bread was or a quarter milk, you know, and it’s, it’s, it’s Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton is fabulous, especially in a town hall meeting, where they’re debates in 1996. I can’t remember where, yeah, sure.

Jeremi Suri 8:13
Bob Dole and Bill Clinton.

Paul Stekler 8:15
Yeah, but I mean, by that point, the election wasn’t gonna be that close. 2000 you got Al Gore, in the middle of George W. Speaking, approaching him and like, you know, getting into a space. And George W looking at him going What? And that’s also the famous lockbox, whatever the hell that meant, you know, with it, it was already in a lockbox and no one was gonna take it. Yeah. 2004 the same thing. George W. Bush doesn’t do very well. And the debate, the first debate with Kerry, and they go is he lost his stuff, then he comes back and carry his carry 2008. You know, again, it was not a fair fight. At that point. Obama, it was much more popular, you know, you could have beaten john mccain, you know, after the recession and the reaction against the Bush administration. 2012 the same thing Obama sleepwalk. So the first way to romney as he lost his stuff, and he makes a comeback. And then we have the craziness of the 2016 election. And it’s kind of like this is a program about democracy. We got too much democracy. It’s kind of like we’ve morphed these, these primary debates where they’ve gotten more and more people to the point where when the Republican primary, you have an entire, you know, to two nights of these guys, right? And for reasons that we can talk about Donald Trump totally dominates, you know, because he is not really talking about issues. He’s bigger than all these guys in the middle. They’re all trying to tear him down. And I don’t think I’ll ever forget, I was sitting watching the debates with some political friends of mine and all of a sudden in this case of like, 10 seconds, he calls a Senator Rubio little Marco and turns the Ted Cruz and calls him lyin Ted. Turn to a friend of mine. I go, I don’t understand what’s going on. And now we have like, 15,000 people right for the Democratic nomination. Right. Okay. Do we need primary? Do we need debates? Steckler says no getting rid of.

Jeremi Suri 10:08
So how did we come to this point, though? Is it a natural evolution from the visuals of Kennedy Nixon to the visuals of today? It was interesting in your in your actually wonderfully succinct history of presidential debates that you just went through. Paul, you talked Not a word about policy?

Paul Stekler 10:26
Well, as you know, like, I guess from some of our conversations, Paul does not think policy is a very big deal. Okay, we elect candidates, we know elect issue, right? You know, I mean, did people vote for Donald Trump because of his policies? Or because of his slogans, you know, build that wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it.

Jeremi Suri 10:44
So what are the debates showing us about the candidate? I

Paul Stekler 10:46
think they they show you what their characters are like, and who’s a really good candidate who’s actually compelling who’s somebody that you like, which I think is a problem for the Democrats, because this is not exactly showing up the democratic field in a very positive of light. You know, I think, you know, as an example, you know, having these debates for large parts of this thing, Medicare for all versus you know, performing Obamacare, this is not the point. The point for Democrats are republicans want to get rid of Obamacare and have no substitute. That’s the issue. Okay. Medicare for All is never going to pass. Okay. reforming Obamacare, what does that mean? Okay, it’s a flawed issue and has nothing much to do with with medical issue, just care about health care

Jeremi Suri 11:29
about providing health care to citizen, I guess,

Paul Stekler 11:31
you know, but it’s kind of like, you know, what do you do when you have 7000 people on a stage, this is a really good way to make everybody look small. Sure. You know, I don’t understand why the democrats have done this Unless, you know, democracy. It’s just it’s too much democracy is kind of like, you know, work for the republicans because you had this. And I know, this is going to sound strange for some of your your folks. But you have this giant, you know, reality star in the middle of a bunch of guys that sounded like politicians, you know, and that’s why he did so well. He, you know, sounded like he was unhinged in a crazy way. But he was very entertaining in a strange reality TV role, and he was completely different than everybody else. And this thing is kind of like, we’re wondering, is Joe Biden going to make it through the debate? Right, right. You know, as Elizabeth Warren going to sound like somebody besides a schoolmarm? Is Bernie’s head going to explode, and beta a war because he really going to come for your guns.

Jeremi Suri 12:23
So So Paul, is that really what these debates? Are? They just reality TV?

Paul Stekler 12:28
I don’t know. I don’t really understand what they’re for anymore. I really think they are. So they’re so not useful for for the party and opposition right now. And, you know, people can disagree with me, they want more democracy? No, it’s kind of like, you know, we can have a representative democracy and everybody gets a say, it’s kind of like a ruse. So you know, times 250 million people. Right, great. You know, it’s, you know, for me, the way we used to do this is people went out and they campaigned, you know, and, you know, Jimmy Carter campaigned a lot over in Iowa, and he caught on, and he won. I don’t think that Barack Obama did well, in Iowa, because of the debates with him, and john edwards and Hillary Clinton, he caught on because he was a really good candidate, you know, and so, being a good candidate is not the same thing as winning a debate with 20 people. Okay, it’s not the same thing where everybody gets like, a couple of moments, and you’re trying to figure out candle lines, right, which almost always sound bad, because they’re candle lines that you memorize? Exactly. You know, it’s kind of like I don’t I, for the life of me this this is this is a heck of a way to nominate somebody.

Jeremi Suri 13:36
What about the argued that the debates allow us to, to assess character to, to see individuals? I mean, you could say on the one hand, it’s unfair that Nixon won the debate on substance. But actually, you could argue that people were assessing who was more presidential and Kennedy was more inspiring. Kennedy was more presidential, and that is the role of a candidate.

Paul Stekler 13:55
The same with Reagan. Right? But what’s the difference? There’s two people on there, okay, I’ve got a choice. You know, I don’t people, you know, talking for one minute here and three minutes there or something like that. Okay, I actually have the ability to be able to make an assessment. Now, I think it’s still a flawed assessment, you know, being on TV and staring at a camera, you know, until I’m talking about your talking points, right, you know, was a hell of a way to be able to make a statement as to who you actually are. Right. You know, and quite frankly, you know, I thought that Donald Trump was terrible in the debates versus Hillary Clinton. Remember, he said, he wasn’t sure if he was going to abide by the LV election. Right. He was kind of stalking her, you know, didn’t make any difference. It’s kind of like, no, it’s it’s, I’m not sure the debates make much, much sense. Anyway, that was the next thing that was asked to do they actually change outcomes. I, you know, I don’t I don’t know anymore. It’s kind of like, you know, have we gotten to the point where we’re so tribal, we’re so partisan, that we see what we want to see, you know, and Is this the way to be able for the democrats to produce their strongest candidate? I think that a lot of Republicans would have said this was a hell of a to choose a candidate. And then all of a sudden, they got this guy, which I think a lot of people are still going, how did this guy become president? Right? Okay. But it’s a different America. It’s a different way of people relating to politics. And is it really better way you tell me?

Jeremi Suri 15:14
So Paul, how, how has the the media coverage of this change? If we’ve talked about how, you know how, in a sense, the debates have devolved? Right, in the cut? And the debate itself? How was the media coverage change?

Paul Stekler 15:26
You know, I don’t know, it’s kind of like, you know, part of the problem right now is that you have more candidates and area more media than ever, and the more you have, the less you have, right, so Nixon and Kennedy, it’s really the three networks that are covering it and offering commentary. Two and a half back. That’s right, as ABC was barely a, you know, barely a network. Now you’ve got, you know, cable, you’ve got, you know, you have all sorts of things and people are, are listening to what they want to listen to, you know, so I’m not quite sure how you actually speak to the entire country anymore. This is part of our problem, right? Because how do you solve any problems at all? You know, it’s kind of like, you know, people are complaining about, you know, they hear the latest, you know, thing about President Trump and they go, I can’t believe it, you know, but is anybody listening? Right, and the people that can’t believe it, don’t like him, the people that don’t care, don’t care. And, you know, his poll numbers are remarkably the same. Now, I saw Matthew dow the other day say that anybody below 45% can’t win on election day. Well, maybe, but you still got to lose the somebody, that somebody, right.

Jeremi Suri 16:29
Right. Exactly.

Zachary Suri 16:31
Well, if if if debates and the especially primary debates pose, such a challenge to the party establishment, and in many ways, many people agreed that debates are something that don’t really display policy in the way that it should, then why do we still have them?

Paul Stekler 16:48
I Why do we have debates? People think we should you know, what’s the party establishment? Tom Perez. You know, it’s I don’t know that we have an establishment anymore. And we don’t even, you know, the media wants to

Jeremi Suri 17:01
wants to show these

Paul Stekler 17:03
people the, you know, you’ve got places on TV and people want to have their spot, you know, and they’re more eyeballs. You know, maybe I’m totally wrong. Maybe this is just great. It’s great for democracy. More people are involved. They’re all going to come out and

Jeremi Suri 17:15
vote when you get millions of people watching. Yeah, so so that one could argue right, that that actually masochists? Yes, and that it actually gets them engaged, you know, maybe not engaged in the most productive ways, but it does get them to pay attention.

Paul Stekler 17:29
You know, I wonder how many of those people watch the entire way through it? Right? You know, I really do. It’s kinda like, I watched all our listen to all three hours. And I was filming over in Houston before the debates, and I got help me watched all six hours of the vape. beforehand. And it’s kind of like, and did I learn anything? Yeah, it’s, I guess, it’s kind of like, you know, desperate candidates do desperate things. You know, Joe is still alive. You know, why is Bernie so unhappy? You know, it’s kind of like, I don’t know, it’s, it’s a soap opera. It’s reality, CV. So Bob is not a great soap opera. So it’s, you know, I’ll be curious, you know, which one of these people can slip their way to the top? And then what are they going to do with Donald Trump? Right. So,

Jeremi Suri 18:10
so, so how would you change things? You You bring this perspective as it as a historian scholar, as, as a documentary maker, as as someone who pays close attention to the media? What would be the way to change this to make the debates more effective and helping us choose good candidates? No

Paul Stekler 18:25
one’s gonna listen to me, I get rid of them. These debates are stupid, we shouldn’t have them at all. No, no, I think what you should let us let people campaign, okay, and let them go out there and talk to people and campaign and get on formats more

Jeremi Suri 18:36
democratic in your eyes, right? Well, I

Paul Stekler 18:38
don’t care if it’s democratic. I think it’s more you know, what makes more sense. these debates to me are doing nothing. You know, there are a lot of really good candidates that can’t get on the debate stage. You know, and you know, maybe they would do better. Again, this is my own prejudice that they were actually just out there campaigning. Right. You know, and let people let the democratic process when all this stuff, by the time you get to Iowa back in the old days, a lot of those people would drop out anyway, because they didn’t have a whole lot of support, and they go to Iowa, and they get 1% of the vote and they’d be gone. Right? Okay, then you can have a debate, you know, then you can have a debate with the people that are actually the last people standing, who actually, you know, are serious candidates. So you want Why do I have to listen to Andrew Yang? I’m some serious really well, he I mean, he he

Jeremi Suri 19:23
has some interesting things to say. But

Paul Stekler 19:25
you have interesting things to say to Well, that’s why you should listen to me too. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, why, you know, why? Why? I’m serious. You know, Marianne Williamson, why am I listening to her on a debate stage? Right? I mean, I’m serious. This is kind of like, this is wasting my time.

Jeremi Suri 19:38
And you and it’s actually distracting perhaps, you know, candidates, we should be focusing. Yeah. So so you’re actually for a debate with fewer people? You’re not really against debate,

Paul Stekler 19:46
debate with fewer people later on in the process? Gotcha. Okay. I don’t need to have these people debating a year plus before the first primary. I just I don’t I don’t understand it. You know, and there are people that you know, and people think this is a really good idea. Great. Okay. Well, it’s just an old style guy.

Jeremi Suri 20:03
No, no, it seems actually as as, as I listened to you that we do this less for the democratic process, but more for the entertainment value of it. Right, that there seems to be some something entertaining about seeing 10 people on there. And and, and the creation, the necessary creation of conflict. The way that the way that the way that an individual out of 10 gets attention is by being nasty towards someone else,

Paul Stekler 20:24
right? I guess. Yes. It’s in one person’s entertainment is another person’s torture. So

Jeremi Suri 20:30
do you do you? Do you find the debates interesting and worthwhile?

Yeah, I think what’s really interesting about the debates is in many ways, it gives people the wrong impression of politics. And I definitely agree with all the criticisms that that you mentioned about the debates. But I do think that, in many ways debates do help bring people into the process, because I think like a lot of kids my age, and young people in general would not be as involved in politics. And it allows an easy access point. Because if you don’t know, if you don’t have time to research the candidates, it’s not something passionate to you just getting to see them all together is something that in many ways is just practical, it’s convenient.

Paul Stekler 21:09
But see, I would totally disagree with that. It’s kind of like, you know, the debates didn’t help better or work in Texas, you know, he helped himself as as a campaigner. That’s why we have campaigns. And when he got to the debates he did terrible,

Jeremi Suri 21:21
you know, that, you know, I think that’s right. I think, you

Paul Stekler 21:23
know, it’s kind of like there, if you’re a good candidate, there’s a way to reach out there. And then within a depth, you know, use of social media, with actually putting on the shoe leather. You know, one of the reasons of the Hillary Clinton lost was that she went to half as many rallies as Donald Trump shouldn’t even go to Wisconsin, this is not a debate. It’s a campaign go out there and campaign

Jeremi Suri 21:42
and your your analysis, Paul, from as a scholar, and as someone who’s been involved in politics is actually the campaigning is a better indication of who should be in office, I

Paul Stekler 21:51
think it makes you a better candidate. You know, when when when I used to when I used to do politics, not very well, but you know, my definition of a good candidate running for state rep. City Council, was the person that really want to go out there and go door to door was really hot outside, you show me something and you know, something you learn from those interactions, you become better explaining yourself, you become better introducing yourself, you become better talking about the issues where you’re really just talking about yourself, right, and you’re selling yourself, you know, very few of us are experienced political people. A lot of people learn how to do this. And they’re not going to learn how to do this from being on a debate on TV. Right,

Jeremi Suri 22:29
right. Well, I think that’s a really good point for us to close on. I mean, one of the most important elements of a democracy is how we choose our leaders. And the process of campaigning has has been bread and butter to what democracy has been from its foundations. And in a certain way, I think, Paul, what you’re saying very powerfully, is that debates are distracting us and taking our energy away from what actually matters most. And that there’s a potential if we can get back to the campaigning to looking at how candidates reach out to citizens rather than the lines that you on a stage that we could actually choose better candidates is there’s a possible optimistic story there even for someone as cynical as you like it. So join me stop watching don’t encourage them. Do you agree with that, Zachary? Sure. Okay, so today, we have come to the conclusion that it is time to spend less time on debates, and more time on campaigns. Thank you for joining us. For this week of This is Democracy.

Narration 23:32
This podcast is produced by the liberal arts development studio and the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin. The music in this episode was written and recorded by Harrison lumpy, and you can find his music at Harrison lemke.com.

subscribe and stay tuned for a new episode every Thursday featuring new perspectives on democracy

Transcribed by https://otter.ai