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