At the outset, it was a relief that the first presidential debate between Biden and Trump, held at CNN Center in Atlanta a couple of nights ago, did not precipitate chaos as it did the last time these two men met. Thankfully, we had a full ninety minutes of the allotted speaking time, even though it is arguable whether anything factual or meaningful came out during that time. Given that the democratic party asked for the debate and had the rules skewed to favor Biden, the only outcome that was crystal clear to everyone who watched the debate, even partially, was that Biden looked weak, tired, and lost most of the time. Not a great orator, even at the best of times; I have seen better speaking days from Biden than what was on display on the 27th night. From the word go, Biden’s voice was raspy, low volume, and incoherent, and he never got into a full stride except on very few occasions. On the other hand, Trump was all of himself, in his vainglorious pride and confidence. He was sharp and focused, and he kept piling on his brand of truth, leaving Biden literally no space or breath to respond assertively. I don’t know what message the American voters will derive from this debate: Will it be that they are stuck with choices they have no control over? or will it be that the incumbent may not be able to continue office in his current state and, therefore, the other man is the better alternative? Or will it be the realization that there is a radical and urgent need to overhaul the political process, people, and the nature of the discourse itself?
I did not watch the entire debate live; I kept toggling between channels. Later, when I reviewed the summary, what struck me really forcefully was that on key matters of national and international importance, neither of the candidates offered any well-thought-out solution. In fact, the only response I found appealing and sensible was Trump’s when he said that he expected NATO to chime in with money to fight all the battles they are jointly involved in and not just depend on America to fund. To me, that is the right approach. Currently, America is spending billions on the war in Ukraine and Israel with no end in sight. Financing and fighting a war across geographies to help other nations may be a nice thing to do when all is well on the home front. But unfortunately, that is not the case. There are a lot of things to set right internally first before stretching out one’s hand to those in need. At least, that should be the government’s priority. The other aspect is that Trump has always come across as someone who is overwhelmingly confident about his abilities to set things right in and for America. You can see that in his responses all these years. His answers invariably begin with “I” and never “we” – meaning his party. As a leader, you should have some strain of brazen confidence to do things even when things aren’t going well for you. Otherwise, it isn’t easy to hold a nation or a government together.
On the other hand, Biden is a resilient, self-effacing man who is a deep believer in conservative American values. He is much more controlled in his demeanor. He doesn’t clearly articulate his achievements and strengths in public as much as he should. In fact, that is his and his party’s basic problem. Unfortunately, image is everything in political life, optics, as they call it, in the modern-day media. And if there is one concrete outcome of the debate, it is that the optics for Biden don’t seem very positive or confidence-inducing. He may have done a lot of hard work in the last four years to revive the country after the pandemic, but if those good things cannot be packaged, focussed, and presented to the public who live in a media-soaked age, the task is only half done. There is a second debate planned in September. After this first encounter, there are doubts about whether the next round is a sensible move or not. I believe Biden should go for it. Anyone can have one bad outing at the office, but it doesn’t mean they are down and out. Indeed, the first debate was an important outing for Biden, and he should have attempted to do better than he did. Not to worry, though. The second debate, closer to the elections, will give Biden another opportunity to project himself in a positive light to his party and the voters. He is undoubtedly capable of turning it around. His life and career attests to Biden’s ability never to give up.
Current debates aside, the American Presidential debate as a concept is a wonderful democratic process. It is meant as a podium for the Presidential candidates to articulate their position and vision for the country. While the election campaigns and propagandizing that happen on pulpits across the country preceding the elections are about getting close to the local communities and soliciting their votes, the presidential debates themselves, held during the last weeks or months leading up to the election, are a truer national mirror reflecting the caliber of candidates on critical civil and economic issues, and how they respond to each other on important national and international priorities. Standing on the podium alone, with no party aids to prompt them on, under the glare of spotlights, facing each other, and addressing an audience — both live and television — that can run into hundreds of millions, the presidential nominees are expected to put up s good show and answer and rebut spontaneously, with wit and grace if possible, but always with intellectual rigor and emotional poise. It is debatable if these debates themselves ever sway the elections in any way, but there is no doubt that they help voters get a sense of their leaders aspiring to occupy the white house. It is a peek into the soul of the men, one of whom will hold the destiny of America and that of the free world in their hands for the next four years.
The first such televised Presidential debate was held on September 26, 1960, in Chicago, Illinois, between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon( available on YouTube). Three debates were planned. The rules were mutually agreed upon between the two nominees. JFK was a natural orator, had a flair for words and an incredibly charming public demeanor; Nixon, on the other hand, was a shrewd political strategist, ever stressed, restless, and often shy of the public stage. There was no doubt in anybody’s mind which way the first public debate would go. As expected, JFK soared high with his matchless rhetoric and effortless poise. But, interestingly, Nixon came back strong in the next two debates. History records that on the 8th of November 1960, the election day, when the results were announced, JFK won the presidency by less than one percent margin to lead America into its youthful resurrection for the next eight years. There was a break of eight years from 1968 to 1976 when Nixon refused to debate. Then, from 1976 onwards, quadrennially, the spectacle of two presidential nominees verbally clashing with each other on stage has become more of a national rite, a crescendo in the election campaign, and a moral barometer to check which of the two candidates is able to come across as The candidate for the future of America.
The speakers are not privy to the questions they will be asked during the debate. However, it is not rocket science to figure out what the questions could be. The candidates are expected to be well-educated on the facts and policies endorsed by them and their respective parties on all matters of national and international interest. The responses have to be framed in an intelligible manner with a keen sense of rhetoric and style. It is a demanding exercise, no doubt, knowing that your voice, your responses, is heard by hundreds of millions of potential voters. Even an inadvertent slip of the tongue would echo long after the debate has ended and could leave an irrevocable mark on the election campaign. There is a very thin line between doing well and not doing well in those ninety minutes. At the end of it, it is the voter sentiment and feeling that matters. Not all the debates across the ten odd elections since 1978 have had substance, style, or erudition expected of these high-profile encounters. Still, it can be said of most debates that the nominees at least allowed the courtesy to each other to speak their minds. However, things changed in the 2016 debate when Trump and Hilary faced each other. The discussion between them was anything but pleasant. Then, the 2020 debate between Trump and Biden precipitated into a cacophony as soon as it began without a single coherent exchange between the two throughout the event.
There is no winner or loser in the presidential debates. The result, if any, is one of public perception and nothing more. In one of the greatest and widely acclaimed debates in American history, the better debater and orator actually lost. I am referring to the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. In the summer of 1858, when the question of slavery was of great importance, and the nation was perilously close to disunion, two formidable men clashed for a senate seat in the state of Chicago: Abraham Lincoln, a forty-nine-year-old Republican who believed that all men were born equal and vocal about abolition; and Frederick Douglas, the seasoned democrat, two-term incumbent, anti-abolitionist who thought the white man was designed to rule. There could not have been two men with more contradictory positions on this issue at that time. Both were brilliant orators, and their speeches drew massive crowds. Wherever Douglas spoke, Lincoln would step on the same podium a few hours later, rebutting or responding to Douglas’s arguments. Since Lincoln always followed Douglas and responded to his ideas, newspapers began to characterize Lincoln’s approach as “defensive.” In July of 1858, due to the pressure from the newspaper accounts that Lincoln was never assertive, Lincoln suggested that both Douglas and he get on the stage together to debate. Douglas wasn’t very keen on this idea. After all, he was the current incumbent and had nothing to lose. Sharing the stage with Lincoln is tantamount to granting him an equal chance and status. Under public pressure, however, Douglas reluctantly accepted the idea but insisted that he choose the venues. Lincoln was okay with it and took over the task of deciding on the format of the debate, which he carefully structured and orchestrated. There were to be seven debates. Each debate lasting three hours. The first speaker was to get an hour, followed by the second speaker, who would have an hour and a half to respond, and the last segment of half an hour would come back to the first speaker to deliver any concluding rejoinders. Lincoln and Douglas would speak first in rotation to avoid undue advantage to either one of them.
Never before and never after have political debates assumed such importance or popularity in the public mind as the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The tall, lanky Lincoln and the short cocky Douglas set the stage on fire. The seven debates became a national spectacle. People traveled from all over the country, set up tents, booked hotels, and created a carnival atmosphere. Partisan newspapers from both sides covered each debate verbatim ( at least they tried). The crowds “booed” and “cheered” with the rise and ebb of inspired oratory. Both men, sweating and tired in the sweltering summer of the midwest, rose to the occasion and delivered extempore some of their finest speeches. They transformed every debate into a discussion on the foundational principles of the nation. In fact, they were not merely debating but subtly educating a young nation on how to make judicious and wise choices. Neither Lincoln nor Douglas needed notes to refer to, gifted as they were with a prodigious memory, wide learning, and laser-sharp intellect. The substances of the debates were printed and distributed widely across the country.
Lincoln lost the senate seat to Douglas, but a few years later, on March 4th, 1861, as the turn of events would have it, Lincoln stood up to deliver his inaugural speech as President. In a touching moment, as the President walked up the aisle, he removed his hat and looked for a place to hang it when a hand reached out from the chairs – It was Douglas with a smile on his face. He held the hat for the President throughout the speech. That night, at the inaugural ball, the first lady walked into the hall in the arms of Douglas – her first suitor, whom she let go to marry the ambitious and introspective Lincoln. The debates were behind them; it didn’t cloud their personal respect and regard for each other, and a new era was set into motion in the United States. Tragically, three months into Lincoln’s presidency, Douglas died of a heart attack while doing what he did best — speaking and educating people on preserving the state of the Union, which was threatening to break apart. During his funeral, Lincoln refused to come out of his study or speak to anyone. He ordered the white house to be draped in black, a mark of respect given to only the choicest members of the republic.
On that day, two great men were silent: one shut in his room, filled with grief, and the other lying at rest in his grave. They were both winners. Together, they forged a nation’s principles—those seven encounters between August and October of 1858 will remain forever a testament to America’s debating spirit.