P. M. Eastern, 1 00 p. M. Pacific, here on American History tv. Next, historians put the president ial debates in perspective in this online forum hosted by the american historical association. We will hear from Yale University is joe freeman, and newton minnow, who currently serves as a member of the commission on president ial debates. It is an honor to introduce todays panel chair. Joanne freeman with a particular focus on clinical violence. Froman has one fellowships the, centers for scholars and writers, the american historical association, and the library of congress. Best book award. Her most recent book explores violence in the u. S. Congress between 1830 and the civil war, and what it suggests about the nation will american professionalism exceptionalism, and longstanding groups of the civil war. Welcome. Anne it is my pleasure to be introduce the three people who will join us on the panel today. First, Kathryn Brownell is an associate professor and editor at the washington post. Her research and keeping focus on the intersections between media, politics, and popular culture, with a particular emphasis on the american presidency. Book examines the institutionalization of entertainment styles and structures in american politics and the rise of the celebrity presidency. She is now working on a new book project. Generate oseph joined as founding director of the centers of study. Prior to joining, dr. Joseph was a professor at tufts university, where he founded the School Center for the study of race and democracy to focus on Research Issues of race democracy. Been oner focus has what he describes black power studies, into pledges interdisciplinary field such as women and ethnic studies and political science. Newton and minow is senior counsel to the law firm of llp, where he was a managing partner for more than 25 years. His long and storied career to the chiefice justice of the u. S. Supreme court. In 1951, president john f. Kennedy invited him to be chairman where he served in 1963. A life trustee at the university of notre dame how how what notre dame. The commissionof on president ial debates and he has actually been involved in every president ial debate from 1960 two the present time. With16, he was presented the president ial medal of freedom. Discussion, the panel we are having, is particularly well because onst tuesday, we will see the first todayential debate, happens to be the 60th anniversary of the first Kennedy Nixon debate. The first televised president ial debate. Think for that very reason, it makes sense to start there. Given that you were central to the decision to hold the debate in the decisions involved in carrying it out, for those in the audience who are not familiar, which is hard for me to imagine, that famous to the visual impact of it that kennedy looked relatively young and shipper, nixon had a 5 00 shadow, and was ill. The visuals of the debate played a role. I wonder if you could tell us a bit about what organizing the debate taught you about the purpose and the impact of the debate. Television was fairly new at that time in American History. What prevented the debates on television was the law. Law requires that a broadcaster gives time to one exactate, must do the same thing for opponent. Who are registered with the federal elections commission, 702. Impossible to have it today with so many people. The broadcaster wanted an exemption from the equal time law. Boss,y stevenson was my candidate for president twice, was invited to testify about the legislation in congress and as the Junior Member of the law firm was signed into testimony, andestified in favor wanted to have an exemption to law, congress did not quite trust the broadcasters to do this forever, but they said from the 1960 president ial election president ial election they would be, exempt. That enabled broadcasters. At the time, there are really network, nbc and cbs were phone networks. They organized debates, the exactly as you said, 60 years ago today. Studios,levision channel two, the cbs affiliate, that is when history was made. The visuals of that debate clearly played a key role. I will start with the obvious. What is the debate, it is such a can i learnnent, about a potential president by watching these debates on tv . I think those debates were key because nixon and kennedy brought different strategies to how they were thinking about television. I think debates captured that. They thought about television in tremendously different ways. John kennedy saw tv as a priority. A very expensive and media to win thert nomination. He appealed very specifically to voters and this is something i chart in charge of my book. He went on tv and radio and tried to create a flurry of excitement for him as a personality. He transformed himself into put political y with it worked. The parties most powerful democrat in the country, Lyndon Johnson. Pursue the media driven campaign throughout the general election as well. Was very much in the red because it was so expensive in the primary. He he was looking for the opportunity to go on news programs to talk about who he personality, so he really sees these debates as an extension. About who he is. Is really trying to use his personality to stay connected to voters. He one thing they frequently get all wrong about the 1960 election, they see him following on the way heoted looked on tv but in many ways, whether heking about was qualified. He did not need the flashy things and is frequently critiqued as being too glitzy and superficial. Campaign, hee tried to emphasize he was the serious candidate and he was using tv to try and do that. If you look at the tv advertisements, they are fascinating. To people very seriously about the issues. He brought that mentality that he did not want to care about the way he looks. He wanted to foreground his or his credentials as the current Vice President. Different the broader t actually apply. Joanne youre talking about two different strategies creating a candidate. What other candidates were constructed over the years that were either particularly effective or particularly ineffective . I think one of the things 1960 unleashes is a formal politics of the presidency. You think about 1976 and jimmy b aer versus gerald ford, peanut farmer. Not really the sort of seasoned politician and governor, former governor of georgia, that he in fact was. He portrayed himself as an honest outsider who would help clean things up in washington and that is very effective against gerald ford, though it but onese election, reason carter rent wins is because there is a kind of plainspoken folk seen us to carter that comes out in the debate. In contrast to 1980 , financially and culturally, and ronald reagan, the former major Motion Picture actor and twoterm governor of california, shows how to perform the presidency when you are president. The debatesk at with reagan and carter, your respective of what you might think about reagans political policies, his ideological beliefs, he looks as if he is the president of the United States. Jimmy carter does not come off in the same way. John anderson was in some of those debates and newness well. Time you fastforward to clinton versus george w. Bush, clinton introduces what we might call president ial, aspirational empathy to these debates. Come is a point in 1992 when the sitting precedent president , actually looks at his and his thinking to himself, his body language is, when will this be over . See he at times, you can radiates empathy and interest. One thing clinton introduces that president ial candidates like barack obama really echoes later and perfects, is the idea of intensive listening is a president ial candidate. When we think about someone like barack obama versus john mccain, barack obama versus mitt romney, one thing you see in those debates, one of the things barack obama is able to and john f. Do kennedy introduced this for better or worse, it creates this celebrity around himself. Current president has done it as well. What barack obama was able to do and 20 in 2008, you see him debating senator mccain and senator mccain is a towering figure in american politics, a military hero and longterm senator. Somebody who a lot of people would feel their integrity is comes offolid, obama as otherworldly, who transcends politics, someone we all would fever dream could actually be president of the United States. The performance of being precedent is what the debates unleashed and i would argue that except for 2000 when we know there was a contested election , most ofpreme court the time whether a person is a sitting president , the person who performed this president better, and not performs in the nixon was super serious, rocksolid, performs as a president that we all imagine the president to be. The president of the United States, we always imagine that person to be, he or hopefully she very soon, someone who is extra special, someone who is an outlier. Not someone who could do the job , competently, but also heroically. A person who performed at that president , isic the person who wins the election. , not always, but a lot of times, yes. Are talking a lot about performance and we will come back to the idea. The i want to go back to you because the commission on president ial debates was and thehed in 1987 point was to ensure the general election debates as a permanent part of the election process. Though they are talking about performance, what was the logic behind creating that, behind making sure the debates continue, and did you get any pushback against the idea . Want to go back a little to the law, 1960, the temporary exemption, expired. Debates for there to be in 1964, 1972, the law had to be changed. The incumbent president johnson said leave the law alone. President. Was the johnson was still there, same thing. In 1972, nixon was president. So the result was, no debates in the elections of 1964, 1968, 1972. 1970 six, the federal Communications Division decided congress was not going to act, that it would act on its own and it reinterpreted the equal time law to create debates as an exempt news event. The voters organize the 1976 debates. I was recommended to help the league and that is how i got involved. They were not getting along with the candidates and we organized what is currently the commission of president ial debates, as a result of two studies, one at harvard, and the other a study of georgetown. The Current Commission of president ial debates which organized every debate including the one that would occur next week. A permanente institution in american politics. As we see the shift from Insider Party politics determining nominations, shaping so much of the actual campaign, to bring it out more in the open, which means more in television, more driven by the media as well. You have an emergence of a new politics that is supposed to be more transparent and open to a variety of different people, to have their voices shaping the issues and who the nominees will ultimately be. In 1876, it is really key to think about that election. It is one of the first elections in the wake of watergate where there is a push for more information to be out in the public, the push for transparency. Also the change in the nomination process in which we have primary contested in both sides, and with party bosses no noger Party Insiders longer shaping the parameters of the conversations about the election, journalists step into have more of a say. A debate into that were journalist really see themselves as giving information voters need to make their decisions that they no longer necessarily relying simply on the part on the party for. For sure. Now this is going to be the greatest understatement in the world. We are in the middle of a distinctive political moment. One of the distinctive things about it, at a moment that is so difficultthat it is for people with different views to converse, a moment when we are struggling with the fact that there are facts. Would any of you like to comment where place that a debate there is a special place for this kind of debate in the distinctive climate we have now . I i would say it does but think in the past, debates were less about gotcha moments and more about a national and people had more of an Attention Span. New peoples Attention Span is, we have been trained to have short Attention Spans. Scholars know this because we can see it in the new generation of young people, who we teach. I have been teaching for over 20 years and the students that i , the Attention Span is going shorter and shorter. There was no iphone. People were ready to engage longer. I think the national Attention Span is very short. I think these debates are very important, but i think the structures of the debate should be transformed from, instead of andng to get many questions allowing folks to only have two minute answers, to really have a debate where we say, we are just going to talk about education for the entire two hours, we will just talk about the environment, just racial justice, gender justice, just criminal justice reform, what that would do is allow both candidates to say ok, i will get prepared for this one topic. Dive about do a deep what our philosophical policy differences over these topics but also tell the american vision, ift is your you were to remain president or be president , about these topics. , but povertyebate in the great society. These issues are so important and pressing. Changes onhat short there can people in our democracy is we try and turn a debate into one hour and a half for an hour of gotcha moments between two candidates. Remember the famous Vice President ial debate and denson got the great line in saying, senator, i was a friend of jack kennedy and you are no jack kennedy. Line, but we lose the substance of what we were talking about. Democracy is in peril right now. People will watch these debates. My fear is that partisanship has become so harsh in the country that people are watching to specifically cheer on their own side, whatever that might be. There really is no objective winner or loser because it will only be viewed through the prism of parts and politics. I wonder what you think about that. What is your sense of what the debate might do now and what do you think it might break down into . You cannot make people debate. You will show up this time and put dissipate. It has to be worked out. Short, two minute answers. Jim had been a moderator repeatedly. Muchange the format very along the line you are suggesting except not one subjects. Ut a few we have an hour and a half or debate. Debate tuesday night , the moderator already announced to the public and to the candidates. Segments rather than two minute answers. What we want, what is the purpose of the debate . It is for the voters to learn more about the candidates, what they think, whether you can trust them, for you to get an impression directly, you know, going back to when i was in school in the beginning of not have ayou could democracy with more than 30,000 people. Why 30,000 . Because that is the number of people who could assemble on a hill in athens and here one person speak. Now you have got the United States of america with 330 Million People scattered across the continent, alaska, and hawaii. It is the one way people can one person speak at one time. You have got to use television if you can come and radio, for people to learn about this. The purpose of the debate is not to serve candidates, but serve the voter. That is what we try to do, anyway. It is interesting there has whethers tension over or not Television Debates conserve information. Reliable source of information for the voters . This has been something i have seen debated every year, that debates have actually happened, or whether they are being people wereppening, disappointed they did not get enough out of the candidates, that neither of them went into more than they did on their Campaign Speeches. Throughout 1976 and into the 1980s, there is a constant was two press it conferences happening going back and forth. Over nothe frustration getting information for the voters has always been there. On the other hand, i wonder if there is a different way to think about the debates. There was a really good article about this in 2009. She talks about debates as this opportunity for civic engagement. You may be cheering on your candidates and not fully listening to the other side and there may be that partisan lens that comes into how you are understanding that and i think especially it is going to happen this year because people are watching it while they are on twitter, so they are engaging in that spin process immediately, so i think that partisan lens may shape that experience but it does bring people together to talk about the campaigns, to talk about their candidates, and it does encourage civic virtues. There may be problems with that in terms of the lighting on this as the sole way people get information, but it does help people engage in the process. A we, but it might but itrgumentative we, is going to file conversation and that needs to happen for a functioning democracy. That again, im trying to have a positive attitude about this i do think these debates could help at this particular moment because the candidates are not interacting with one another. Covid19, there is so much being used in terms of advertisements that are prepackaged, that are carefully out to before they go the broader public, so this might be an opportunity for people to get out of those echo chambers and actually see the other candidates interact. Half a brief hour and a where people are watching the same thing. I do think the partisan filters might undermine the potential here, but there is that potential. I would say, unfortunately, no, i would disagree because i think right now, for those of us who are observing what is happening out in the streets of america in protests and what is happening in terms of our the liest as well and and obvious stations, we are in a transformative moment in this debate is not going to bring the nation closer together, no. What we can hope for is, in the future, that we try to set up institutions that strengthen our democracy, strengthen our civic culture, but right now, we are in very harsh times and this debate, if anything, is going to amplify, unfortunately, peoples preexisting echo chambers. We see this in the data, the data about these different issues and even the fact that we are going to have one of the topics be about cities and not even dogse are whistles anymore, these are open whistles. This is not about racial code, we have evolved from nixon and 1968 to 2020 where we are open with our Racial Division and it a very impactful visavis portion of the electorate that is vulnerable to these messages and wants to hear messages about racism and division and a portion that is reaching towards what we are calling antiracism, social justice in a big way. We all knowe see this from the discourse of television and cable notes cable news, twitter, instagram, we are living in two different nations, a divided society, and those different nations, in some ways, are as divided as they were just after the civil war and i dont think this debate and the two candidates that we have are somehow going to be able to bridge that divide. If anything, this is going to amplify the preexisting divisions. Will that continue . Not necessarily. We can choose a different future, but right now, we are all too fixed in this moment on those ideological poles that got us to this moment to somehow utilize tuesday night in the subsequent debate to untie that disagreement over what does citizenship mean . What does id bet what does american identity mean . And the pandemic, 2020 is a year andlague, a year of upset, your protest, but also a year of opportunity, this provides us with different competing visions of reality. Some of us interpret the pandemic differently. Some think it is a hoax. Others believe in science. Some of us interpret these protests as a beautiful reimagining of democracy, others interpret these protests as the fall of civil society. There is no way these debates can get those two competing visions together. The hope is that in the aftermath of this debate, maybe 2020 is a fever and a fever has to break and once that fever empathya kind of between both sides can come and force us all to strengthen these institutions, to be these institutions, but to strengthen these institutions of american democracy that not all of us, but some of us hold so dear. Those are the excellent points and i agree with you and i want to emphasize that i dont think that a debate is going to solve all of this. Is it you think productive to have two candidates who talk at each other and their audiences are hearing such different things, do you think it could be productive to have them actually whether or not they are debating to exchange different narratives, to try to call one another out on that misinformation that the president frequently tries to advance on some of these issues, at least having people of different political stripes see an effort to uncover that and call that out and call that into question, do you think there is an opportunity for that . Yes, we have to have these debates, it is part of the functioning of democracy. Offear is that in this year racial and political reckoning, we will have two candidates that talk past each other and what that does we are in extraordinary moment because in the past, we have had candidates who disliked each other, we had candidates who had ideological divides with each other, but in a cohesive way, we had candidates who agreed on the political reality of the present, that there was an objective political reality that they interpret it but they could agree on that political reality. I think what we are seeing now is we cant even agree on the political reality. We have a president who is on hishe gets an a handling of the pandemic and we have millions of americans who agree with that. In the past, we could have had people who could agree, objectively, no, the pandemic has not been effectively handled by this government. The fact that you have that means that we have these competing realities and unfortunately, right now, we have doubled down on what we believe, both sides have doubled down on what they believe and what that has produced is some of the most Divisive Political rhetoric in American History that goes back to the civil war, reconstruction, but also produced a real anger and mourning on both sides. There was a great book, anger the americanon rights, i will tell you in the context of ruth gator ruth bader ginsburg, there is anger g throughout america and these candidates speaking past each other and being angry andach other passionately not empathizing with each other, though i would argue that one candidate has shown more empathy than the other, that continues to amplify our division. As a matter of muscle memory, should we have these debates . Absolutely. The more things we can do to help our democracy flourish, the more we should be doing those things. I wanted to ask you to wait in since we have two different views. My hunch is i want to deal with one issue and that is the pandemic. Thingk the most important that may came out of tuesday or the series of debates is how different views deal with the pandemic. Division, asarp countryt out, in this on many issues, but particularly on that. ,hat i think the debate will do debates bill due, is show the American People is how the two candidates propose to deal today and in the future, in the next term, with the pandemic, and there are going to be very different views. That is the best part of a debate, that we will see and hear the candidates together dealing with the same issues. Most of the time, with the commercials, the amount of money being spent on politics, there is not very much that is depth and i am hoping that what we will see in the pandemic is in depth discussion of what should be done in the eyes of both candidates. So in the spontaneity, you are suggesting that even if we live in a world where we up against each other, in that process, spontaneity will tell us something about the moment we are in, about the pandemic, that the clashing itself will be educational, even if people dont come away transformed as to whatever side they are on . Either you believe in signs or you dont. Dont. Cience or you i think this is going to class for it. I would applaud that. Let me ask one more question, then i want to segue into questions from the audience. You are all scholars of these debates in one way or another, what would you tell people watching these debates to watch for . If you could speak to the audience, what would you say to them as audience members, to prepare them for watching it or what they ought to watch for that might help them evaluate what is going on . I think one thing there are a lot of things i could imagine, but i think one thing is the power of spin that is going to be happening right away. This is something that you really see coming out for the election, of the 1876 1976976 election election, where the Carter Campaign is taking advantage of gaffs. Fords after that right moment, carters team capitalizes on that and tries to turn that into an issue of the campaign. Witheam is working journalists to raise their attention about, this is a major mistake and reflects these broader things. From that point on, you see this idea of the spin team really shaping everything that is happening immediately after the debate and we are going to see that happening in real time and what is key is to understand that. Be to have more media literacy, to understand who is shaping interpretations of what is coming out and why, and i would encourage people to develop their own opinions, but i do understand, there are going to be so many voices interpreting that this is a win for joe biden, this is a win for trump, to be aware of that but you tune it out because this is very much an integral part of the debate, it is not just the debate, it is how the debate shapes the media narrative. Ng aware of that will make being aware of that will make people more savvy citizens as they watch this happen. I would say that people should be on the lookout for whose vision of our current political reality is closer to their perspective objectively, away from their ideological perspective. The debates should be about, what is the Current Health of american democracy and americas place in the world . Year of been this huge pandemic, of protests, of unrest, but also opportunity. The thing to watch out for is to look for truth, who is consistent . Who is speaking to the tenor of the times . And who is empathetic . Who is speaking to, we have tens of millions of americans who are out of work, 37 millions americans who have food insecurity, millions of americans who are homeless, 200,000 who died from the pandemic, so we have these real challenges and i think the thing to watch for is to see which of the candidates is going to try to confront those challenges in an honest way and open way and sober way and has a vision to try to bring the country together. I think when barack obama spoke in 2004 at the democratic convention, it had this unifying call for a kind of civic nationalism based on empathy. I think that was a powerful call, even as there was there were real challenges that he rhetorically flew over, which politicians tend to do, they tend to call us to this meeting place, like newton was saying in athens, they are going to call us to that big city on a hill, but there are many obstacles to get there. Nk of what candidate again, we are not right now in a nationally unifying moment, but we also have to think and not allow our imaginations to be held hostage by this moment. What candidate has the best opportunity to move the country forward in a unifying vision . Does not mean you will agree with the candidate in every aspect of their policy, but it means that you think this candidate has more empathy, more understanding, and is speaking more honestly about this moment because so much of this moment is based on lies that we have told about the country, that we told about ourselves, that have suddenly come to the fore for the entire world to see, we should not shrink away from this moment, we should try to see, how can this moment make us better by assessing how did we get here and what can we do to move out of this moment together . I agree with all of that. I think what you really want to see, if you can, is how the candidate thinks. What kind of a mind does the candidate have . How he or her uses. Is this a candidate i can trust . Can i believe what he or she says . Issues come and go, issues change. You want to know if the person has the ability, the judgment, the mind to deal with changing circumstances and to adapt particularlyded, when you are living in a time, ofe are, of Nuclear Danger terrible pandemics, you want to who can this a person command my trust in who i believe will reach a wise, fair decision . That is what you want to get out of the debate, i think. Thank. We are going to segue from that advice to open things up to questions from the audience. Please use the q oneday q ation to submit your function to submit your questions. Those who are watching this through facebook live, these use the comments section to submit questions and staff will pass them along as well. We are going to try to answer as many as we can during that time that is remaining. Send a longer questions and i will start now with some of the questions we have already gotten. This is a good place to start because we havent focused on the presidency, we did not talk about Vice President of debates. They evolved along with Vice President ial debates. Vice president o of debates bring generally and in this election . In terms of the vp debate, i think the vp, since Lyndon Johnson, can only hurt you and not help you. I think Lyndon Johnson, who texas, and state in obviously johnson city, Lyndon Johnson without Lyndon Johnson, jack kennedy could not have won the presidency. Since then, what you see with Vice President ial debates, dan quayle hurt george h w bush. It was not enough to lose the issidency, but if the talk if the Dukakis Campaign had won a more robust campaign, they may have been able to utilize quayle inayle dan a bigger way. Al gore helps clinton less in the context of the debates but 46, alat clinton was gore was 44 and became a useful ticket where they took the bus trip around the country in 1992, showed a kind of youth. I think joe biden helped barack obama, i think joe biden provided a seasoning for people to see that barack obama was 46, but he had joe biden, who had been this Foreign Policy expert and had been in the senate since 1973. I think the Vice President can hurt you more than they can help you and what both candidates are looking for is a Vice President who is going to be a pit bull, who is going to do the kind of attack and do the kind of thing that the president , she or he would not want to say in a debates. That is what i think about the vp. The vp is not somebody who can really help you win, but they can help you excite your campaign. Kamala harris is a very helpful vp. She is the first black woman, south asian women on a ticket in American History, but she is a former prosecutor, she is check the mind of the person, and i think she is an effective debater, she is eloquent and elegant in her speech. When you think about the vp, you think about somebody who will first, do no harm, and remember 1972 and Joyce Mcgovern George Mcgovern and thomas , whoton and that debacle had some issues for that time and in the treatment of depression, which we now take seriously as a Mental Illness that can and should be treated and should not exclude people, but you dont want to do that, you dont want to have a vp where something comes out and people say this vp is disqualified. One of the interesting things in 2008, Hillary Clinton had made a rhetorical, tactical mistake in that close primary bond with barack obama because early on, the Clinton Campaign said he could not satisfied could not satisfy the 3 00 a. M. Test but as that contest became closer, there were people in the clinton camp saying, what about you get both candidates . The Obama Campaign responded saying, she said that we were not ready for the 3 00 a. M. Call, so how can we be on the ticket together because she is saying he is not qualified. Sometimes, you can attack somebody who later on, you want to team up with, and we saw that in 2008. I always thought that was one of the more remarkable part of the campaign that people did not discuss. Do you want to say anything about the Vice President ial component . The 1960 debate, there was no Vice President ial debate. Subsequently, when the league revived the debates in 1976, we have always had a Vice President ial debate, which i think is important because the voter ought to know what the Vice President would be like in case they become president. President ofice debates and three president ial debates, which i think is probably the correct balance, but it gives the voter a chance to know and evaluate the running mate, bearing in mind the possibility that that person could become the president. I just finished reading a election by1976 Daniel Williams and he makes an that carter mondale, that first as a dental debate, performed very well. He came off aggressive, which tends to be the attack strategy, but he handled it so well, the Carter Campaign started to national in their elevate his presence, have him talk more on the campaign trail because he handled that debate well and it connect with a particular demographic. Theink that underscores points you are talking about in terms of there is a tendency to be aggressive but there is an opportunity to show your qualifications for the office and how you handle the spotlight. To a are going to move on pandemicrelated question. We have seen how the pandemic democratic and republican conventions. I am always fascinated, the mixing of technology and democracy, so watching that, i found fascinating. The question is, how do you anticipate the debates being impacted by the pandemic . Say that the pandemic the Debate Commission has had to change things drastically. However it two debates were going to be at universities, both decided, i think correctly, that they did not want to have a large crowd with the pandemic, so we have had to adapt to what we think is a safe, healthy process. We dont know what is going to happen in the future. ,he main point i want to make the primary debates have audiences which cheer and interrupt and commercials. The president ial debates, there is no audience that says wething were tears or boos, do not have commercials, and there is a big difference. The primary debates are, in many who want by protesters to run by broadcasters who want to promote their own people and are less involved with what we think is a pure voteroriented purpose. I want to make that point because people confuse the president ial debates with the Vice President of debates all the time. Say, i thinkg to the biggest thing that not having an audience is going to and theis the pandemic idea that the federal governments response and white houses response has not been competent, not effective, it is been a cruel and gruesome if wese and the fact that have competent leadership, will we be able to not resume a normal seat because i dont think america is going to get back to the old normal, i think we are trying to build a new consensus, but that we can be safe, that weekend maybe resume contact with each other, so i now, the fact that right we have some sports teams playing in bubbles or with limited capacity or with no fans at all really speaks to this crisis of leadership that the country is facing. Format, as did the convention, really reflects these dire times we are in and gives voters another chance to assess that idea of honesty and how the mind of the candidates work. Just because this predicament we are in, the science has told us we did not have to be in this exact predicaments, but we are in that predicament, so the fact that there is going to be unusual debates, three of them, to me, it amplifies how dire the situation our democracy is in and i think tens of millions who watch that debate, hopefully, i think these debates have the biggest audience in American History and not just because we have newton here, not just but for ouratings, democracy, those of us who believe in democracy, we want as many people to be part of this as possible, as many people to vote as possible, as many people to be active citizens as possible. I hope everyone watches these debates to can, but i hope they understand why the debates are formatted the way they are, visavis this pandemic, we might have had an alternate reality if we had competent leadership. Another question. What do you think about the position of journalists in the debate process as it has developed . What should the bowl of the moderator be . Role of the moderator be . In . Would like to weigh that is a fascinating question. Especially right now, so many responsibilities are put on the moderator. There is a lot of discussion serving asoderators Fact Checkers and making sure that they follow up with concrete questions, calling out the different candidates when they lie about certain things, when they manipulate the different realities. I think the challenge for moderators is tremendous. Lookingthat moderators, at this historically, they have originally, and you can add in here because you have been more involved in this process, but from what i have seen, they tried to enforce the rules. They had certain questions that they were prepared to ask and they tried hard to keep people on their time limits. Then i think, more recently, they have tried to ask more specific followup questions and in trying to make sure that people answer the questions, it is a challenge in that capacity. I think they have become more involved, more expectations are on moderators today than there were in the past. I would say that the moderator should the moderator be a historian . I would say yes. Not biased at all. What is interesting about historians we think about how many voters we have, women , a woman of color would be awesome, that was at every debate. , historian would be important not just a president ial history, but cultural history as well, that can keep candidates honest. I think sometimes journalists are overwhelmed with trying to keep everything in line. You are trying to keep the logistics of the time in line, maybe lies or halftruths get dismissed. One of the things that our it ist reality shows us, surprisingly easy to defy democratic norms. The last four years have shown us that. Quote when john roberts, he is an empire, he just called balls and strikes, right . Moderators have to do more than called balls and strikes and newton knows this, in the past, when you think about jack and eddie into Richard Nixon or 1976, all theo way up to 2020, you had candidates who walked the fine within accepted behavior the political structures that we have. What we have seen over the last four years, and we think about the senate and the congress, norms have been defied in journalists dont know how to respond to norms that are being defied. They really dont. Some journalists have responded, but it is also head turning because what you do if you have a president who is lying repeatedly and consistently during a debate . Did you say, mr. President , you are lying . It is very uncomfortable. I think we need a new perspective for moderators where it is not just calling balls and strikes, it is holding whatever candidate this is away from ideology accountable for their misstatements, the sitting president might be one thing, for former Vice President joe biden, it could be another, it could be a series of votes that he did in the senate that you have to hold him accountable for as well. A historiany would be great, alongside a journalist. If journalism is the rough draft of history, what we do as historians is we clean up the mess by going to archives and dedicating our lives by dedicate our lives to cleaning up the mess, we call out people from blue states and people from red states, we call out people in power and call out for people because we follow the evidence and it would be great to have a moderator who has been used to doing that and that moderator should be someone who is ethical enough to call out even someone who, in other instances, they might agree with. Historians call out things, but they call them out later, they dont call them out at the same time. One of the most valuable things the commission on debates, we work with some 80 different countries, all with Different Levels of the democratic process, to organize debates in those countries. Get theteresting to perspective of others because they dont all use journalists as the moderators. They have different kinds of moderators. Teddy white once proposed when we were first beginning that the debate off to be conducted in the halls of congress and the leaders of the Opposition Party should be the questioner. Other people say they should be historians, other people say they should be business people, teachers, they should be a more Diverse Group we have a Diverse Group of moderators. It does not have to be journalists. The history i would have loved to have been a historian myself. Why we have journalists as moderators is because the broadcasters started the first debate and used their own people. Second, the candidates want journalists. So i think in the future, you will not see all journalists as debates evolve. Ok, lets back away for a general question about the impact of the debates. This person is asking, how much of an influence do debates have on the outcome and do major gaffs affect the final result of an election . I have a strong opinion about this. I have said a lot about this because i have studied the 1960 election, studied tv, and there is a popular memory of the 1960 election that the tv debates, that is why kennedy want the election. Won tahhe election. Have told inns that myth. There are a variety of different ways in which they have shown that survey that is frequently cited that people who listened to nixon thought he one on radio , whether it was people who watched kennedy on tv, thought he one parent that is supposed to show the role that tv played. Anecdotes, not on real research, and historians have shown how that is a myth of the 1960 debate. However, what i think is key is abouthose conversations how much of a difference a tv debate can make can reshape political practices and our very ideas of what is required and what is needed to run for office and you see this with the 1960 election. That tv and the tv debates in particular determined the outcome more than Richard Nixon. He believed this. Historians have shown, there are other reasons why he lost the 1960 election, but he believed it was because of these Television Debates and because of his media strategy and that transformed happy thought about campaigning, how he thought about political power, and he then begins to emulate everything he saw kennedy due, that he criticized during the 1960 election, he makes media sawpriority in the way he kennedy due in 1960. That tv debates are at the core of how he thinks about this and archives talking about his media strategy, documents show he is obsessed with the 1960 debate and it does change the way he things about politics. Election,ns the 1968 he is saying, that is what i did differently. Then they start to believe in the power of media and television in particular. Canink these debates reshape norms, reshape cultural values, but not because of the debates themselves, but the way they are talked about and remembered. , debates cany shape narratives and media narratives and i will go back to 2012 and given anecdote. Romney, aftermitt the first obama romney debates, many people argue that obama lost that debate, they said obama was listless, he seemed tired, he seemed like he did not want to be there. Some people in obamas camp said they felt the same way. There was a media narrative both in the Mainstream Press and the africanamerican press, which i follow both closely, that was saying obama lost the debate and in so doing, might lose his reelection campaign. After a wild,as, even though initially obama said debate,ht he lost the he conceded to this narrative and said, i lost that debate. But he promised his own people that he was going to be better prepared for debates 2 and 3. What most people felt was blight debates 2, obama was back to the person people expected him to be, he was back to his 2008 self, he was that star that people needed, that his supporters wanted him to be. Obviously, obama goes on to win 29 states and win reelection, that two states he loses between 2008 and 2012 are North Carolina and indiana. To 29. From 31 states what is interesting about that is this. No matter what a political scientist must say and i love political scientists no matter what the data and exit voter data might say, what is important about debates is they say popular narratives that go beyond corporate media, now are connected to social media, and connected to different constituent groups that are vital, including get out the vote efforts that are vital for success or failure. One of the things people have to understand, irrespective of whether you come the candidate, feel that you want or lost the debate, post debate, you have to set up whether that means you manufacture it or whether it is a reality you have to set up and could chamber among likely voters for you that insists you won the debate so they think they can go to the polls feeling thatdent and prideful their person, she or he, has won the debate and is going to win the office. People might later say, obama was going to window matter what that narrative of the debates said because when you look at it, he wins 29 states, he wins handily in ohio, wins florida, all these key states. That theld argue narrative of the loss, if that loss had been sustained through three straight debates for mitt romney, the outcome might have been different because what happens in debates 2 or 3 influence his own voters, it influenced them. They did not want to be connected with someone who was listless and not performing, they wanted to be connected with the dreams of 2008 and he performed effectively in debates 2 and 3 and people conceded that there guy had gotten his magic back. I remember headline that said, joe president has his mo back, he bought it but he got it back. I think that was important for his success and reelection. People have made up their minds, who they are going to vote for, before the debates. By most, i mean Something Like 85 . Lets say there are 15 who are undecided, their votes can be influenced by the debates, but i think it is a very small percentage. Most of the time, the debates reinforce the view that the voter had before the debate and for the small number, they decide the election. Anotheris moderatorrelated question. Advisedd each panelist the moderators . Is there a question you would pose or a strategy you might use to get the candidates off of their prepared policy script . I would ask every candidate, why do you want to be president . Why are you worthy of the highest office of the land . What is driving you, what is your passion to either maintain the presidency or become president . I would be listening for answers that go beyond ego and beyond wine and beyond wanting to and that really talk about the people, that talk about the democracy, american but that really give me a sense of someone who is going to be a serviceoriented leader because that is what you want from the presidency. I would ask, why do you want to be president . If it is the president , i would say, why do you deserve four more years . I would agree with that. Gettingt because into the nittygritty of the issues is just not possible in 15 minutes to talk about education. Seeing these for what they do do and they offer an opportunity to push both of the candidates on this question of values and vision and i think that was really important to call out and have a specific conversation about that as well. I agree with that and i would add, who are the president s that you would like to be like . If you could be listed as being like president x, who would president x be . I love that question. That is a great question. If one of the present if one of the candidates answers jefferson davis, it tells us a lot about those candidates. [laughter] if they say they love jefferson davis, if they say they love robert e. Lee, it tells us a lot about the candidates. About that candidate. Someone wondering, can anyone Say Something about nontelevised president ial debate . Debates that preceded the ones we have been talking about . I would like you to talk about that. Is there anyway you could talk about the debates, the lincolndouglas debate . I think many people think about that in terms of setting that structure, that idea about discourse in conversation in meaningful conversation. Is that actually what happened . Newton, you want to weigh in . The lincolndouglas debate had no response. Lincoln and douglas negotiated that debate with each other and from the will of the sponsor, it was nonexistent. Role ofrole from the the voter, it was more information then we get in our current debates. These were long debates. They were not questions from journalists, these were therecal debates where was a proposition, who should be elected . Reading the literature of the debates, there was real substance. Slavery. Was not am i right . It was an issue, and during the debates, it was not an issue. The debate versus the reality is something to think about in that election. We are at the last question and here it is. How do you anticipate president ial debates changing in the future . How should they change . And how will they . I would say, in the future, there should be a more Diverse Group of moderators, including College Student including people who are poor, moderators who are not ablebodied, nonsystem end are, we are moderators, black women, latinx women, moderators from all walks of life should be part of it. I think what we said, if it is a 90 minute debate, we should have at least three issues in 30 minute blocks instead of 15 anutes, where we can hear vision for american democracy and society, a vision about education, about mass incarceration, even about physics and civics and democracy itself. Say, wherewould behold the debates matter. We should have debates not just at universities, we should have debates in union halls, debates that are in open parks, public spaces. We should have debates that are reflecting the topography and geography of the United States, including places they have never been before. That arehools africanamerican, that are latinx, that are indigenous. We need to think about that and not just have them at a university for a strategically located university. We need to think about where they are going to debate, how they are going to debate, and have moderators that reflect the diversity, economically, racially, of the country. Other thoughts on how things might change in the future or how they should change in the future . Go ahead. I am very curious after your thoughts, because you have seen these changes and been part of them. Idease with some of the and i am really curious as to offthose ideas would face against the demands of the debates in terms of the costs, the security, all of those institutional demands that have made them take shape the way that they have, how can you try to grapple with those concrete issues versus the demands for new voices and perspectives . I think they will change enormously inn the future. I would love to see one that was a classical form of debate. , butld like to see others i think the important point is that debates dont cost the candidates anything, they dont have to raise money for it, it has taken money out of politics, it reaches everybody, and the important thing is one thing for the voter, not for the candidate. Opportunityke this to close things by thanking all of you for taking part, sharing your wisdom with us this toernoon, for doing so much find the people who have been watching, to be ready for watching these debates as they come along in the next weeks. Those who have been watching, thank you for being here. This is the kind of public forum that feeds the democratic process, so thank you for being part of that. Historicalell to the association for supporting this kind of forum and feeding into the democratic process and for reminding us that everything has a history, including president ial debates. Lets but not least, i want to remind everybody to vote. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [inaudible] you are watching American History tv, covering history cspan style, with event coverage, archival films, lectures in college classrooms, and visits to museums and historic places, all weekend, every weekend, on cspan3. The first tv president ial campaign ads air during the 1952 contest between Dwight Eisenhower and adlai stevenson. Ads have been essential to every campaign since. Here is a look. Was born in an Army Hospital in colorado. My dad was serving in the army. Both my parents taught me about public service. I enlisted because i believe in service to country. I thought it was importance. Hadou had privileges as i come give Something Back to your country. The decisions he made saved our lives. When he pulled me out of the river, he risked his life to save mine. John kerry has served america. When you look at my fathers time in service, whether it is as a veteran or senator, he has shown an ability to fight for things that matter. He is the face of someone who is hopeful, who is generous. We are a country of optimists. We are the cando people, and we just need to believe in ourselves again. A lifetime of service and strength, john kerry for president. Im john kerry and i approve this message. Personally raped, cut off heads. The accusation that john kerry made against the veterans who served in vietnam was devastating. Randomly shot at civilians. Cut off limbs, blown up bodies. Torturewas part of this part of the torture, to sign a document that said you committed war crimes. John kerry gave the enemy for free what i and my colleagues in the prison camps took torture to avoid saying. It demoralizes vered demoralizes. How could we be boiled to him now . Country keyis dishonored his country. If you like politics, you can find archival ads, debates, and Campaign Speeches on our website, cspan. Org. Every saturday at 8 00 eastern on American History tv on cspan3, go inside a different classroom and hear about topics ranging from the revolution, civil rights, and president s to 9 11. Thanks for your patience and for logging into class. Closed,both campuses watch professors transfer teaching to a virtual setting to engage with students. Gorbachev did both of the work to change the soviet union but reagan met him halfway. Reagan encouraged him, supported him. Freedom of the press, i should mention, medicine called it freedom of the use of the press. It is freedom to print and publish things, not a freedom for what we prefer to institutionally as the press. Lectures in history on American History tv on cspan3, every saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Lectures in history is also available as a podcast. Find it where you listen to podcasts. The contenders, about the men who ran for the presidency and lost, but changed political history. Senator hubertta humphrey. The contenders, this week at 8 00 eastern on American History tv on cspan3. John f. Kennedy was the first and remained the only catholic to be elected president of the United States. During the 1960 campaign, many protestant groups publicly opposed senator kennedy, fearing the influence of the pope and the Catholic Church on his presidency. Next on reel america, democratic nominee john f. Kennedy on the topic of church and state, religious freedom, and tolerance. He spoke to a meeting of houston ministers. Paid for by the Kennedy Johnson texas campaign. The broadcast includes an extended questionandanswer session, and parts of the film were later used as campaign ads. The 1966 speech called the myth of the great society. Eastern, a u. S. Information Agency Series intended for International Audiences that describe the u. S. President ial election system
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.