This is Democracy – Episode 278: Presidential Debates

[00:00:00] Voiceover: This is Democracy.

A podcast about the people of the United States. A podcast about citizenship.

About engaging with politics and the world around you.

A podcast about educating yourself on today’s important issues.

And how to have a voice in what happens next.

[00:00:25] Jeremi Suri: Welcome to our new episode of This is Democracy.

Today we are going to discuss presidential debates and the role that debates have in elections, particularly our 2024 presidential election. On September 10th, we had a major presidential debate between presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. It might be the only presidential debate we have between these two candidates.

We will talk today about why these debates matter. If this particular debate had any effect on the race, and we will try to understand the ways in which the debates between presidential candidates have in the past and might continue into the future to influence the way our democracy operates. We are very fortunate today to be joined by our friend and frequent guest, Paul Steckler.

Paul, thanks for joining us today. Glad to be here. Paul Steckler, as our listeners know, and as the whole world knows, is a nationally recognized documentary filmmaker, who’s been critically praised for his work. He’s done some of the most important work on film and politics using film to help elucidate the nature of Americans.

politics. He has made numerous films, more than I can name. And many of them, I must say, are some of the very best documentary films made in American history. I will just name a few of my favorites. The best documentary film on George Wallace, a major right wing politician in American history, George Wallace setting the woods on fire.

It’s one of Paul’s films. He also made a film, Last Man Standing, politics Texas style, Last Stand at Little Bighorn. And one of my favorites and perhaps most relevant films for our current political discussions, Postcards from the Great Divide. which is a web series about politics for the Washington Post and PBS Digital.

Paul’s films have received two George Foster Peabody Awards, three Alfred DuPont Columbia University Journalism Awards, three National Emmy Awards, and a special jury prize from the Sundance Film Festival. It must’ve been fun to go to the Sundance Film Festival.

[00:02:46] Paul Stekler: it was, it was great fun. I used to live out on Utah.

I think, the, paper said I was the only sort of Utah resident who had ever won at the Science Festival.

[00:02:59] Jeremi Suri: Were you one of the only non Mormons there as well?

[00:03:03] Paul Stekler: No, This is Park City, so it was a, it was a secular, secular event.

[00:03:09] Jeremi Suri: Gotcha, gotcha. it is great to have you on, again, Paul, and it is wonderful to have a chance to put the presidential debates in perspective, both historically and politically.

Before we get into our discussion, we have, of course, our scene setting poem from Mr. Zachary Suri. What’s the title of your poem today, Zachary? Everyone is laughing. Everyone is laughing. I hope this makes us laugh. Let’s hear it.

[00:03:36] Zachary Suri: When we see them on our screens, do we think their words are real? Do we feel what we’re supposed to feel?

Do we feel it in our spleens? Is it kindness that we want to see, or just a basic empathy? Or is it but a wrestling bout, one with the loudest shout? It isn’t clear that anyone listens or pays attention at all except to the bully who screams at the wall, except to the man whose words seem to stall. What does it mean, then, to look us in the eyes and laugh?

To break the anger clean in half and smile at the passing lies? All you can do is stare when everyone is laughing at you and knows what you say isn’t true and knows you do not care. All you can do is stare.

[00:04:30] Jeremi Suri: What inspired this poem, Zachary?

[00:04:33] Zachary Suri: This poem was inspired by watching the last debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

And really the sense that you get that it’s not just an election about policy or politics, but about the temperament of these two people. And, the way in which that clash of temperament played out on television was particularly fascinating. the way in which one candidate responded with anger and vitriol and the other with a sort of calm, almost sense of humor, was very striking to me.

[00:05:03] Jeremi Suri: I think that makes sense and I think it affects the way, we think about and, saw this debate. Paul, do these debates matter? does it matter that, as Zachary says, we had two candidates on September 10th with very different temperaments, clearly very different approaches to the way they talked about issues such as immigration?

does it matter for our election? it’s,

[00:05:27] Paul Stekler: this, complicated. And, I’ve got a whole list of things over here in terms of histories of debates and if they made a difference or not, which I’d like to go into. And, and, yeah, sure. everybody agrees, that the debate was won by, the vice president.

Okay, but what does that actually mean? the conventional wisdom is that debates don’t mean much of anything. that they’re mostly watched by partisans on both sides, and that’s the way they evaluate these things. it’s hard to, it’s hard to look at history to see that a debate, made a gigantic difference.

But a lot of times, a small difference is crucial in an election. let’s take a look at, the history of debates to start off with very quickly and then get into this one. At least, the, the famous, Kennedy Nixon debate in 1960, clearly helped John F.

Kennedy. the interesting thing about it was that, People that watched the debate overwhelmingly thought that Kennedy had won it. People that just listened to the debate overwhelmingly thought that Nixon had won it. and it was a case of, oh, this is television. Does that mean that the visuals are more important than the substance?

Because, Kennedy was young and good looking, and Nixon was, sweating a lot, and had a, five o’clock shadow. in 1976, Gerald Ford, the sitting president, mistakenly said that, he freed Poland. it was a misstep. He didn’t really mean that. and it was clear that it hurt his momentum.

If the election had gone on a few more days, he probably would have beaten Jimmy Carter. but having that momentum slowed for a day or two may have made a big difference. Ronald Reagan in 1984, his comeback against Mondale, it was probably, reinforce an election that was already going to be won.

but in 1988, you may remember, governor Dukakis being asked about what would happen or how he would feel about the death penalty if his wife was attacked and killed and give a very clinical answer, which was terrible. in that same year, our own, Senator Lloyd Benson, looked at Dan Quayle and said, you were no John F.

Kennedy. It was probably one of the best lines in the debate. They didn’t have any kind of an impact on the election. in 2000, Al Gore was blithering about having lock boxes. And stalking, George W. Bush around the, around the debate stage, which probably didn’t help him. of course, the elder, president, Bush looking at his watch and not being able to, talk about grocery prices in 1992, Obama’s terrible debate, first debate against Romney in 2012 against, Mitt Romney, which he was able to rectify and other debates.

And then we can debate the debate on the debates. Trump’s performance in 2016, where he seemed to be losing to Hillary Clinton. 2020, where Joe Biden held his own, and then we get to 2024. again, clearly, Harris won that debate. Okay, so what does that actually mean? the numbers, overall were pretty static afterwards, not as if this was a big push, towards Harris.

It’s a 50 50 election. It was a 50 50 election beforehand. It still is until you drill down the numbers. I think it’s a 50 50 election where I’d rather be Kamala Harris than Donald Trump right now. And there are some interesting things going on, which may or may not have been affected, by the debate.

clearly, Kamala Harris’s favorability has had a miraculous, upsurge, in the last couple of months from being, close to 20 points underwater to being, a 50 50 tie in favorability, while Donald Trump’s numbers have remained static, and a little bit underwater.

the biggest, I think, effect of the debate was a boost in Democratic enthusiasm. Again, remember, partisans are mostly the audience that are watching this, and for Democrats, if she did well, their enthusiasm goes up. This leads to a big boost in volunteers and people wanting to help the campaign, and probably has an impact on turnout.

there’s a reason, I think, that Donald Trump doesn’t want to have a second debate. almost nothing he does, good or bad, affects his supporters. his numbers are pretty static, no matter what he says about dogs or cats or anything. he’s around 47%. Doesn’t move. but the debate clearly, in some way, helped the Vice President.

And if that’s the case of these debates, if he can’t actually impact her face to make her negatives higher, There’s really no in, no incentive for him to have another debate, the debate, I think overall clearly helped the vice president, but if you drill down again into those states, they’re all a world of their own and we can go over what seems to be happening, poll wise.

And what the positives and negatives are for both the vice president and the former president.

[00:11:25] Jeremi Suri: Absolutely. And that’s a really helpful historical framework you’ve given us, Paul. Zachary?

[00:11:32] Zachary Suri: Professor Sickler, why do we have these debates? Why do candidates agree to participate in them and Why have they become such a central part of every campaign cycle?

[00:11:43] Paul Stekler: I’ve always thought it’s because filmmakers really like to film them, as if they actually have a gigantic, impact. I think, it’s partially because, the candidates feel like they have to do it. each candidate feels like they’re a better debater and it’s going to help them. this may be, in the realm of magical realism, but, we’ve been habituated to them, that’s quite frankly, You know as we get more and more, you know divided in the in the country and you know this last time You know the the neutral debate moderators got kicked out of this whole process.

So it just became you know, abc news for all I know, maybe we won’t have debates in the, future. And in a lot of places, the divide between candidates and parties is so great that I think you probably are seeing fewer debates. this is just the phenomena that happened since 1960.

And it may be, it may be something that, we don’t see in the future.

[00:12:50] Jeremi Suri: Paul, close to 70 million people apparently watch this debate live, and I think many millions more saw clips and parts of it that were re shown on and, went viral on social media. it, does seem unique in that way.

We have so few, events that are unmediated in the sense of everyone watching at the same time. is that something that makes these debates more important now?

[00:13:20] Paul Stekler: again, it depends on the, the, what happens in the debates. the one debate that I forgot to mention, which has had an incredible impact on American politics was the, the Biden Trump debate.

which, where his campaign completely crashed, because of his performance. so that, Having a gigantic audience waiting for something to happen. Yeah, of course. yeah, again, it’s unclear, how this actually changes people’s opinions if it changes people’s opinions at all.

I’ve seen some of those panels that people put on with supposedly undecided voters. and remember that undecided voters often are the also people that don’t vote. because they have less incentive, to be able to vote because of their, opinions. I don’t know. It’s you know when 70 million people watch anything, it’s going to have an impact.

It’s just unclear. If that impact is, is crucial in an election.

[00:14:27] Jeremi Suri: What about, the, point you raised earlier, which is the, lines that are remembered or forgotten, or a particular image that’s remembered or forgotten? Again, in the first televised presidential debate, the image of Kennedy, looking like he just came off the beach and Lincoln and Nixon, Richard Nixon, looking he was, in a sauna sweating, that certainly stuck with people, Ford’s line and which you mentioned earlier, Ford’s unfortunate line that, Poland is not under Soviet domination when in the middle of the cold wars, of course it was, the line of course that comes out of this debate is, former President Trump saying that, and this is not true what he said, that Haitian, immigrants in Ohio are eating cats and dogs.

that, what does that do to the electorate when a line like that is, is articulated by a candidate 70 million people?

[00:15:23] Paul Stekler: that particular line has now become, a, I don’t know. It’s all over the place. and I think it will be one of the things remembered in the election, especially if, Donald Trump loses, it’s, it, it’s a funny thing in terms of what people remember as opposed to what actually has a big impact, on the election. I’ll tell you one thing that’s really interesting, Jeremy, I was listening to, Donald Trump at one of his, rallies eight years ago. and I have to say, and I remember this, that he was much more coherent eight years ago.

the things that he said might have been deemed to be as. Wild or crazy or whatever. Okay, the delivery was much smoother, and it was compelling in, in its own way. the Donald Trump eight years later, is really different than what’s happening with him.

And you can see this in the debate is that he reaches for lines, As he remembers them and they often come in very weird places. if I was his debate coach, I’d be going, why didn’t he use that line about, vice president Harris? if you had all these great ideas, why didn’t you do them three and a half years ago?

I wouldn’t have saved that for the end. I would have had that in the beginning. the line about dogs and cats came out of the blue. the line about, Kamala Harris, wanting to, have, the public pay for sex change operations for illegal migrants who were in prison, came out of the blue, by the way, she actually said something close to that in 2019.

but it was put in a way where it went in and out because his thought process is hit or miss all over the place. And it’s partially what’s going on with his rallies. where, it’s become a weird kind of more tired act. what will be remembered, what won’t be, a lot of it has to do with, what the, the final, result of the election is that Donald Trump wins the election.

yeah, I don’t know what we’ll remember in terms of the debate. I do know that, Joe Biden’s, Performance in the debate will be remembered because it had such a profound impact on this election.

[00:18:13] Jeremi Suri: I think actually that might turn out to be, already one of the most important debates, if not the most important debate in American history for that reason, in that it Yeah, I agree.

The only debate I can think of that knocked a presidential candidate out of the race, especially a sitting president.

[00:18:30] Zachary Suri: Zachary, what have you made of the way that, Kamala Harris’s campaign, in the debate, but also outside of the debate has handled the issue of, Biden so far in particular, like how she’s presented herself as both incumbent and, the change candidate.

Do you think that’s been effective or? Is that a unique campaign strategy?

[00:18:56] Paul Stekler: it’s, it’s very odd, in that, her strategy is rope a dope, avoid the topic, and try to make this about Trump and try to make this about, her likability, so that her strategy during the debate was a great strategy, just, put Donald Trump on the defensive, put Trump on the defensive without saying a whole lot of.

substantive stuff about what you would do as president. I’m the change candidate it’s you know, it’s hard if you really think about It’d be the change candidate if you’ve been the vice president of the sitting administration and quite frankly, last night, you know during her her rally with Oprah Winfrey when she said that she had a gun, and if somebody came into her house, she’d shoot them, it was one of those flip comments that she’s been famous for, which I think her campaign has been trying to make sure that she doesn’t do.

And so partially, maybe one of the reasons why, she’s giving so few debate, few interviews. is that the campaign doesn’t want or doesn’t trust her to be able to go into that, area of defending, her connection to Joe Biden. if there’s a strategy where she doesn’t really talk about Biden very much and she avoids the topic, is that going to work or not?

I guess we’ll see. clearly, I think her strategy is mostly to make this, election about Donald Trump and his, his fitness to be president.

[00:20:48] Jeremi Suri: Paul, on that topic of, particular issues and which issues we focus on, clearly, Donald Trump wants to focus on the border. And what he and many voters see as, a problem at the border.

how do you assess, Kamala Harris response to the, often outrageous statements, but, sometimes also serious statements that are made by Republicans about the border?

[00:21:17] Paul Stekler: clearly she’s focusing on the, the compromise legislation. that was, offered by the Senator, Republican Senator from Oklahoma, and the fact that Donald Trump killed it, and so that’s a strategy, to go away from, this, the particulars of the issue, I’m not sure that she’s been talking much about the fact that, the numbers of arrests on the border are way, way down.

if I was her, I would do that. on the other hand, how outrageous, Trump’s claims are, the cats and the dogs are probably the extreme of that. there is some pundit analysis that says that the reason that he continues to talk about this, and vice presidential, candidate, J.

D. Vance actually said this, was that even if it’s not true, it draws attention to the issue. and if they’re winning on the issue, and according to the latest polls, it’s still, a 10 to 15 point advantage, for Trump on the issue of immigration. even if you’re lying, if you bring attention to that issue, it helps you at least in theory, the same reason that same kind of advantage on the issue of abortion and women’s, reproductive rights.

helps the Harris campaign. there are some odd things in terms of what actually pings people’s attention, you know what brings them out to vote and we can you know, sometimes laugh about this dogs and cats stuff in Springfield, Ohio Which ironically by the way is where the governor of Ohio governor dewine was born And I think he has an opinion piece out today About, begging people to stop, stigmatizing the Haitians who are actually legally there in Springfield and were, and asked to be there to be able to fill needed job openings, for the economy of Springfield.

I, if this actually helps Donald Trump, this would be awfully ironic.

[00:23:45] Jeremi Suri: and it should be said that the governor of Ohio is actually a Republican. And so this is also dividing at least that part of the Republican party. Paul, one of the themes in your, incredible, list repertoire of documentary films.

One of the themes you come back to time and again is, of course, the theme of race. And one of the takeaways I’ve had from watching your films on American politics is how embedded race is not in the, just the statements, the, racist statements that a George Wallace often made more deeply embedded in the habits, in the, imagery in the day to day of American politics.

and I think your documentary films really bring that out. And of course the work you did on Eyes on the Prize, the major civil rights series also brings that out. do you see this election as a continuity, as a, as another chapter in that story?

[00:24:46] Paul Stekler: I think as America becomes more diverse, and our opinions about race, change over time, it’s hard to say, there.

Prominent African American Republicans, now, the split that was always there in terms of, Latino voters and African American voters is becoming more, more distinct as you have more, especially, Latino men, backing Trump in this election. it’s hard to decipher.

how do you where does the race issue come down when you’ve got Lieutenant Governor, what is it, Mark Lawrence and, In North Carolina imploding, it’s a black Republican who Donald Trump actually once said might become president of the United States. I, I think that there are, obviously for some people, race is an important, if unsaid issue, and there’s a lot of, things under the, that, that underlies some of the statements that are made by people in the election.

is it more important that Kamala Harris is black or that she’s a woman running for president? I just don’t know. obviously this country has gone through unbelievable change. in terms of its, orientation to race in the last 60 plus years, I think Strom Thurmond would be turning over in his grave, if he saw what was going on, even in his home state with, with, African American senators.

it’s hard for me to say, Jeremy, it’s, but race is always an important part of, American culture. And if it’s an important part of American culture, it’s an important part of American politics, Right.

[00:26:49] Jeremi Suri: And it might be one of those issues that is particularly polarizing today in the assumptions people make about race in their daily lives.

Just to clarify, Paul was referring to the Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina, Mark Robinson, who as of this moment, as of September 20th, is still running for governor of North Carolina, despite all kinds of controversy about his personal life. And he also referred to, Senator Strom Thurmond, who’s now passed away, longtime senator from, South Carolina who has been a subject, actually, that we’ve talked about, an individual we’ve talked about on this podcast before, especially in his role as a Dixiecrat and a filibusterer of civil rights, legislation.

Paul, I wanted to turn a little bit to your thoughts on, the one other debate we know there will be in this, election season. And that’s a debate on October 1st between the vice presidential candidates, Tim Walz and J. D. Vance. what do you expect? Will that debate matter?

[00:27:59] Paul Stekler: talk about debates that don’t have any impact on anything.

Lloyd Benson took Dan Quayle apart in 1988, and Dan Quayle still became vice president. I think that, the audience will be much smaller. I’d be very surprised if it had much of an impact. I think, if anything, people, the people that do watch the debate will be curious about the performance of JD Vance.

He’s been a very polarizing, figure in this election. clearly he’s on the ticket to be able to, to energize the Republican base, the conservative base, which I suppose he will continue to do. and, Governor Walz is, is a pretty experienced debater, and has been in, electoral politics much longer than Vance.

So I think for junkies, it’ll be fascinating. I’d be very surprised if it had much of an impact on the election.

[00:29:07] Jeremi Suri: Do you think that debate, like the presidential debate between Harris and Trump, that it will, be one that, that shows the differences in temperament? This is, I think, Zachary’s point, even though the viewership is likely to be less, that, that having the two of them there, not on a split screen, but actually on the same stage.

Do we actually learn things? The few of us who watch the junkies, as you say, in this situation, do we, do you think we’ll learn anything?

[00:29:38] Paul Stekler: no, I think they’ll, I think they’ll, come off as the way we expect them. Governor Walz is, his advantages is that he’s a very likable guy, and that’s the way he campaigns.

JD Vance, is a, a lightning rod for, a certain kind of, in your face, conservatism or, MAGA ism. And I think that’s the way they’ll probably, Probably come off in a debate.

[00:30:13] Jeremi Suri: So, that, that brings me to my last question, Paul, and it’s one I’ve been wanting to ask you for years.

We’re friends and, I, we, often, talk a lot about politics. You and I, it’s what we talk about, right. You make documentaries. You, make films about politics. Are it, when we’re making a film for an audience, when a debate is being filmed, are we just reinforcing people’s beliefs or does anything.

The films you make, the, video we see of a debate, does it, ever really change anyone’s mind?

[00:30:49] Paul Stekler: personally, Jeremy, I don’t make films to change people’s minds in a partisan way. I’ve always hoped that the films that I made about politics would be about helping people to understand how our political system works and also understand the humanity of the people that are involved in it, not just the candidates.

but the partisans, the volunteers, and the electorate so that, does it change people’s minds? I doubt that, it may be a commercial, would have an impact if it was able to, push on the right button, like the, The Bush commercials against John Kerry and the flip flopping, windsurfing commercials were very effective back in, his re election campaign.

But in terms of my films, I don’t make them to change people’s minds. I make them to, have people understand the system that we have, and the importance of, of democracy.

[00:31:53] Jeremi Suri: and do you think the debates help with that too, or do they have the opposite effect and disgust people and turn them away?

I don’t know.

[00:32:00] Paul Stekler: no, I don’t think they turn people away from my fellows there, as I was joking. they’re very important in terms of, filmically having us understand who the candidates are in their prep and how it fits into their campaigns. in terms of their, importance in the election itself, I think they’re important.

Because otherwise, all news is beneficial. part of our crisis in America right now is with the growth of news deserts, especially in the local level where people are not getting much information at all about local elections and things like that. That’s a real crisis so that anything that helps us understand the candidates is beneficial.

without that, we’re left to, campaign ads and attack ads and conspiracy theories on the internet. even if debates don’t have a profound effect on the election result, I’m all in favor of having it.

[00:33:05] Jeremi Suri: and that, Paul, I want to just stay with this for one second.

That, that brings us back, I think, to the, Biden Trump debate. Because it does strike me that even though in that debate and probably in most other debates, we don’t learn that much about how candidates stand on the issues. We certainly learn more about the issues when we watch your documentaries. Sure.

But in debates, I’m not sure we get in depth. analysis of any issue in any case, even if you go back to the Lincoln Douglas debates in 1858, you can see that there’s posturing and all of that as well, but the debates do give us an insight, a documentary of the candidates health in some ways, right? And that is what we all learned about Joe Biden was how many challenges he was having physically and mentally at that particular moment.

Is that significant?

[00:33:53] Paul Stekler: Of course it is. and, when I was, going through my, my, my education for a doctorate in political science, the cliche was that we didn’t vote on issues. We voted on personalities, who did you like, and the people that you like, you then associate with the issues that you care about.

so that even if the debates themselves are not tremendously substantive, they do either, you inform or reinforce your opinion of what these people are like as people. I think that’s, very useful, again, for Kamala Harris, clearly either the debates or the campaign or something has profoundly affected her favorability.

and that increase in favorability has made her campaign, that much stronger. The interesting thing, again, is that nothing that Donald Trump does in the debates, in his statements, whatever, seems to have any impact at all on his favorability, and his status in the American public.

He’s stuck around 47%. but this is probably because we’ve had, so much Trump in the last nine years. What else is there left to say?

[00:35:25] Jeremi Suri: So Zachary, coming to you Paul’s made the point, I think very well that, the debates do give us some insight into the personality of the individual.

They affect favorability ratings to some extent. And Kamala Harris has. And I’m going to get a little bit of a bump, it seems, from this, her lead has slightly expanded as a consequence and maybe solidified, from the debate. Do you see, cause I know you have, friends and, know many other young people who were disillusioned about politics.

Do you see the debates affecting young people? I think

[00:36:04] Zachary Suri: to be honest, the debate make young people more disillusioned about politics. It’s depressing when there are real issues that people care about and want answers to. for one of the defining political moments of an election campaign to be so removed from the real issues.

I do think that people can be energized by, not by the personality, but maybe by the character of their candidates. I think people want to see, yes, more serious policy and they want to see answers to the issues they care about, but they also want to see a kinder, more hopeful politics. so I think there is opportunity there, but I do think that it’s still often increases the disillusionment of young people who are looking for.

candidates to address real issues.

[00:36:46] Jeremi Suri: But this debate itself, do you think this helped the September 10th debate between Harris and Trump? Did it, help Kamala Harris with young voters? Did it hurt her?

[00:36:58] Zachary Suri: I’m not so sure whether it affected young voters either way. I think if anything, it just reminded them voters.

how much they don’t like Donald Trump, or in some cases, how much they love Donald Trump. I think it was a reinforcement of people’s opinions on Donald Trump. And in that sense, it might help turn out young people who really don’t like Donald Trump to support him.

[00:37:22] Jeremi Suri: and I think that’s the key point.

I think, what comes through in this discussion, and I think Paul made this point very well at the start and referred to it multiple times. Debates don’t change an election and a debate is not an election. It’s one moment in an election and it might be a moment It’s more significant in its own time.

but what’s most crucial is that we use debates as a source of information, such as their worth, and that we encourage participation, in this election. And that’s going to be my last question, Paul, to you and then to Zachary. Paul, do you expect a high turnout in this election? We did have a historic high turnout in 2022 for a midterm election.

We also had a very high turnout above 60%, which is large for the U. S. In the 2020 presidential election, do you expect a high turnout in this election poll?

[00:38:11] Paul Stekler: Oh, gosh, yes. I think it’ll be incredibly high unless some of the, the folks that want to suppress the voter successful. but I think, in my lifetime, I don’t think I’ve seen an election which, Is this polarizing?

Is, this, in, impacting, on the American public, I think we’ll have record highs.

[00:38:40] Jeremi Suri: that’s some good news. Zachary, do you agree among young voters that we’re going to see, an uptick in turnout? We saw that in 2022. Will we see that again in, in this presidential election?

[00:38:51] Zachary Suri: Yes, I think so, for the same reasons that Professor Sekler just articulated, I think.

Young people are itching to make their voices heard on which candidate they prefer and I think, they’re choosing between two very different kinds of politics and two very different kinds of presidents. And I think that will drive people to the point.

[00:39:12] Jeremi Suri: it is an irony of American history, and I’m only one of many historians to say this, that the more polarizing the election, as Paul said, the more, deep the disagreements are and the more, more deep the differences are between the candidates, the more people turn out to vote.

That actually a partisan election, a polarizing election turns out historically to be an election that brings more people to the polls. and that might be a good thing in this situation. Perhaps Americans are drawn to the jousting of a debate and the name calling and the lack of policy substance, perhaps that Zachary said, because nonetheless, the issues do seem so large.

And the differences between the personalities do seem so great and so significant. I want to remind all of our listeners that, it is time to register to vote. If you have not registered to vote and if you are in Texas, time is running out. You must register to vote a month before the election in Texas.

Other states have their own rules. Please make sure you check the rules. Please make sure you check the rules. That you are registered to vote in some states like Texas and Oklahoma. They are purging people from the voting, role. So please, and most States you can do this, go online and check that you are registered to vote.

And we often ask on our podcast, how we as individuals can make a difference. You can make a difference by voting. And making sure others vote. Go out and help others to register to vote. help others and encourage others to get involved. And remind people to vote. Vote early if they want. Vote by mail if they want, if it’s allowed in their state.

And certainly on election day, help people get to the polls. Turnout is crucial. And if our, raucous and, angry debates, do anything to bring people out to vote, that certainly would be a positive outcome. One way or another, Paul Steckler, thank you as always for joining us and for sharing your, insights as a filmmaker, scholar, historian, and, political mensch.

Thank you, Paul.

[00:41:16] Paul Stekler: Thank you.

[00:41:17] Jeremi Suri: And Zachary, thank you for your poem, which I’m still laughing about your laughing poem, about the debates. And thank you for the work you’re doing to bring young people out to vote, Zachary.

Are you there, Zachary?

[00:41:32] Zachary Suri: Yes, I’m here. Do you want me to respond? (Laughs)

[00:41:38] Jeremi Suri: (Laughs) No, it’s okay. And most of all, thank you to our loyal listeners. And, to those of you who subscribe to our sub stack for being involved in, our efforts to understand what we can do to make our democracy stronger. Thank you for joining us for this episode of this is democracy.

[00:42:00] Voiceover: This podcast is produced by the liberal arts ITS 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 Harris Codini. Stay tuned for a new episode every week. You can find This Is Democracy on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher. See you next time.