National politics in the new republic, one the best book award from the societies of historians of the early american republic. Her most recent book, the field of blood violence and congress and the road to civil war, explores physical violence in 1830 and the civil war. What it suggests about the institution of congress, the nature of american sectionalism, the challenges of the young nations developing democracy, and the longstanding roots of the civil war. Welcome professor. Thank you as my pleasure to be here, its my particular pleasure to continue with the introductions, and introduced the three people who are going to be joining us on the panel today. First, catherine associate professor of history at Purdue University and an editor of made by history at the washington post. Her recent and keeping focus on the intersections between media, politics, and popular culture. With that particular emphasis on the american presidency. Her first book, showbiz politics, hollywood in american political life, 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 on the political history of cable television. Joined the university of texas in austin 2015, as founding director of the center for the study of race and democracy. Prior to joining the team doctor joseph was a professor at university in memphis had match of two sets where he also founded School Center for the study of race and democracy to promote Research Focused on issues of race and democracy. His career focus has been on what he describes as a black power studies which encompasses interdisciplinary fields such as african studies, law and society, womens an ethnic studies, and political science. He is senior counsel to the law firm of Sydney Austin lapd where he was a managing partner for more than 25 years. His long and storied career include service as law clerk to chief justice of the u. S. Supreme court. And, as assistant counsel to illinois governor stevenson. In 1961, president jfk appointed him chairman of the federal Communications Commission, where he served until 1963. In addition, he is a former chairman of the Corporation Trustee americas of the mayo clinic, a life trustee of northwestern university. And the university of notre dame, a former trust in of the commission a founder and a leader chain of he is a member of the commission on president ial debates. And related to what were talking about here, hes actually been involved in every president ial debate from 1960 to the present time. In 2016, president barack obama presented him with the nations highest civilian honor, the president ial medal of freedom. This discussion, that were having today, is particularly welltimed not just because on tuesday were going to be seeing the first president ial debate, but also and i will confess this is entirely by coincidence. Today happens to be the 60th anniversary of the first Kennedy Nixon debates, to the first televised president ial debate. Accidental, i think a little bit providence show, and i think for that very reason. It maybe makes sense to start right there. Given that you were central to the decision to hold that debate, and to the decisions that were involved in carrying it out. For those in our audience who perhaps are not familiar with it, thats hard for me to imagine, the famous Kennedy Nixon debate. Particularly, went down in history because i think among other things, the visual the visual impact of it. That kennedy look relatively young and chipper. Nixon had a little bit of a 5 00 shadow, chose to wear no makeup, he had just been ill. So the visuals of that debate played quite a role. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about what organizing that debate taught you about the purpose and the impact of these kinds of debates . Were there any surprises, or particular lessons that you took away . Television was still fairly knew at that time in American History. What prevented the debates on television, was the law. The equal time law in the federal communications act, requires that if they broadcast, or gives or cells time to one candidate, must do exactly the same with the opponent. Believe it or not, this year, 702 candidates for president. Who are registered with a federal elections commission, 702. Impossible to have a debate, with so many people. So the broadcaster wanted an exemption from the equal time law. Anthony stevenson was my boss, and candidate for president twice, in 52 and 56, was invited to testify about this pending legislation in congress. And as i, the Junior Member of the law firm, was assigned to draft his testimony. We testified in favor, some form of debate or joint discussion, and wanted to have an exemption from the law. Congress decided, congress didnt quite trust the broadcasters forever. But they said from the 1960 president ial election only, president ial election only, one time 1960, they would be exempt from the law. That enabled the broadcasters, at that time, there were really two and a half networks. Abc, was half a network, and and cbs were full networks. They undertook to organize the debates, first debate took place at exactly as you said, 60 years ago today. Here in chicago, where i am, in the Television Studios of channel to, the cbs affiliate here, and thats when history was made. The visuals of that debate, clearly played a key role, all open things a little bit broadly here and start with in a sense the obvious. What is a debate, its such a visual component, thats the real power of it. What does that tell people, what does that offer people . And learning something about these candidates, for president . What can they learn about the potential president by watching these debates on tv . I think that, the 1960 debates were really key because, both nixon and kennedy brought very different strategies to how they were thinking about television. I think the debates actually capture that, they thought about television in tremendously different ways. For example, jon kennedy saw tv as a priority. He piece pursued a very expensive and very mediadriven primary campaign. To win the nomination. He appealed very specifically to voters, as jack kennedy fans. This is something that i chart in my book. He went on tv, and radio, and try to create this flurry of excitement for him as a personality. He transformed himself into a celebrity to gain political legitimacy. And it worked. You win the nomination from the parties most powerful democrat in the country. So you continue to pursue that. That immediate driven Campaign Threat that national or general election as well and his campaign was very much in the red because it was so expensive in the primary. So he was looking for all sorts of free opportunity to go on news programs and talk about who he. Was his personality, as well as his policies. He really sees these debates as a extension of that strategy where hes putting an effort to secure his place and use programs. He talks a lot not to but who he stands for but who he. Is he talked a lot about his family. Hes really trying to use his personality to connect to voters. Richard nixon on the other, hand it was on television a little bit differently. He also took television seriously, that something that we get wrong with the 1960 election. He falls very flat footed in terms of the way he dressed, his makeup and the way he looks on tv. But in many ways he was thinking but tv in a way he was trying to show that it was qualified. You dont need these flashy things that john f. Kennedy was using. And he frequently critiqued kennedy for being too glassy and superficial. Throughout his campaign he really tried to emphasize that he was the serious candidate. And he was using tv to try to do that. So if you actually look at his tv advertisements theyre all fascinating. He is sitting on a desk and speaking to people very seriously about the issues. And if you brought that mentality that you dont want to care about the way he looked. He wanted to foreground his experience and his credentials as the current Vice President. I think you see those two different approaches and media politics that shape but the Broader Campaign actually on display during those debates. So beyond that point. Youre talking about two different strategies of people getting some kind of canada. What kind of other candidates have people constructed over the years that have been either really effective or really ineffective. I will chime in here. I will tell you one of the things that 1960 unleashes is the performative politics of the president s. Anything about 1976 for instance and jimmy carter versus gerald ford. Jimmy carter at 76 portrays himself as sort of a plain spoken, former peanut farmer. Not really the sort of seasoned politician or former governor of georgia that he in fact was. He portrays himself a sort of this honest outsider who is going to help clean things up in washington. And that is very very effective against gerald ford even though its a close election. But one of the reasons why carter winds is because theres kind of a plain spoken us the comes out of card that comes out in the debates. This is in contrast of 1980. By 1980 the country is anomalies economically, financially culturally. Ronald reagan whos a former Motion Picture after added two term governor of california really shows how to perform the presidency when youre not president. When you look at those debates with reagan and carter, irrespective what you might think of reagans paul sees, ideological beliefs, he looks as though hes the president of the United States. And jimmy carter doesnt come off in the same way. Im John Anderson was in some of the debates i believe. As well. But by the time you fast forward a bit to clinton versus george h. W. Bush clinton introduces what you might call traditional aspirational empathy to the debates. At 92 when clinton is asking a question about the economy and other things the sitting president actually looks at his watch. He looks at his watch and hes thinking to himself, his body language is what is this going to be over. And clinton at times, you see he radiates empathy. He radiates interest and and i think one of the things that clinton introduces that literally on candidates like obama really echo and perfect is this idea of attentive listening as president ial candidate. Finally when we think about someone like brooke obama versus john mccain, broke a bowman versus mitt romney, one of the you see in that debate and the squabble goes back to what was saying. One of the things that barack obama was able to do and john f. Kennedy was able to do was create this aura of celebrity around him. The current president has done so as well but to a different effect. But brockway bomber into doesnt, eight when you see him debating senator mccain, senator mick here mccain is a towering figure in politics. Long term senator. Someone who would feel their integrity is just rocksolid. A bottle comes off as someone whos other worldly. Someone who transcends politics. And someone who we would sort of imagine in our fever dreams would be the present of the United States. So the performance of being president is what 1960s unleash. And what i would argue except for 2000 were we know there is a president election the Supreme Court decides, most of the time the person whether the persons a sitting president or just aspirant president. The person who performs as president better. Not performs as president in the sense, its like what captain said. Nixon was super serious. Rocksolid. Performs as the president that we all imagine president s to be. And the president of the United States, we always imagined that person to be here or hopefully she very soon, someone whos extra special. Someone is an outlier. That someone who can just do the job competently but someone who can sort of do the job her oakley. The person who performs as that potential heroic president is the person who wins the election. Not always, not always, but a lot of times yes. Were talking a lot obviously about performance. Were going to come back to that idea. I want to go back to you for a moment because the commission of president ial debates was established in 1987 and the point of that commission was to be sure these kinds of general election debates for leading candidates as a permanent part of the electoral process. So although were here talking about performance, what was the logic behind creating that . Making sure that the debates continued. And push back against this idea. Again, i want to go back a little bit to the law. 1960, the temporary exemption from the law expired. So in order for there to be debates in 64 to 68, 70, to the law had to be changed. But the incumbent president , president johnson and 64 said to leaders in congress i dont want to debate. Leave the law alone. 1968, nixon was the president. Johnson was still. There seem. Thing he said no. Debate 60 and 72 nixon was president. He said to congress no debate. So the result was no debates in the elections of 60, eight 72, 76 the federal Communications Commission decided congress was not going to act. It would act on its own. It reinterpreted the equal time law to treat debates as a exempt news vent. An exact news event. The voters then in 76 organized the 76 debates. Frank who organized the 76 debates recommended me to help the league and thats how i got involved. The lead ran the debates from 76, 80, 84. But they werent getting along with the parties candidates, and then we organized whats currently the commission of president ial debates. It was organized as a result of two studies. Economic study at harvard. Another study i think it was, that led to the Current Commission on president ial debates. Its organized every debate including the one that will occur next week. It has become, i hope, a Permanent Institution in american politics. Go ahead. I was going to say i think mention something that i would like to underscore that beats become a part of the political process. As its changing very dramatically, in terms of how nominations are one. As we see that shift from insider politics, etc politics should be so much of the campaign bringing it out to the open meaning that its more in television, driven by the media as. Well so throughout the 1970s you have this emergence of a new politics which is supposed to be more transparent, more open to a variety of different people, to have their voices shaping the conversation, the issues, and who ultimately the nominees will be. So i think in 1976, its really key to think about that election as one of the first elections in the week of watergate, where there is a push for more information to be out in the public. That push for transparency. Also, that change in the nomination process. In which have primary contests on both sides. And with party bosses Party Insiders no longer shaping the parameters of the conversations at the election, journalists step and to have more to say. I think that the debates kind of fit into that. Journalists really see themselves as giving information that voters need to make the decision that theyre no longer necessarily relying on the party platform. For sure. This is going to be the greatest understatement in the world. We are in the middle of a distinctive political moment right now. One of the things thats distinctive about, it we are in a moment that is so polarized, its difficult for people with different views to converse. We are at a moment where we are struggling with the fact that there are facts. Im wondering if any of you would like to comment on the police that a debate of the search is going to have. Is there a special place for this kind of a debate, in the distinctive kind of a climate that we have right now . Does it have the special power . I would say that it does but i would say in the past, debates were less about gotcha moments and they were more about a natural conversation, where people had more of a Attention Span. Newton read out the television as a vast wasteland. Very constructive in the age of social media. Peoples Attention Span is unfortunately, weve been trained to have shorter Attention Spans. All of us who are scholars know this because we could see it in a new generation of young people we teach. Ive been teaching for 20 years and the students that i teach, their tension spent is going, shorter further, and shorter. I used to teach in that context where there was no iphone. People would engage longer. I think the National Attention spent is very short. So i think these debates are very, very important. But i think the structure of the debates should be transformed from instead of trying to get many, many questions, and allowing folks to have two minute answers to really have a debate and say look, were just going to talk about education for the entire hour and a. Half two hours and a half. We are just going to talk about the environment. We are just going to talk about racial justice. Gender justice. We are just to talk about criminal Justice Reform just for the entire what that would do is allow both candidates to say okay, im going to get prepared for this one topic. To, we can do a deep dive into what are our philosophical policy differences over these topics. But also tell the American People what is your vision if you were to be the president , will remain president about the specific topics . Again poverty, lbj, even though lbj said no debates. But poverty in great society. Right now all of these issues are so important and so pressing it sure changes the americans in society, and our civic health is that we try to turn a debate into a hour and a half, and our of gotcha minutes between two candidates. So remember the famous Vice President ial debate with loyd and dan quail, and lloyd had the great line and saying senator i knew jack hannity. I was a friend of jack kennedy and you are no jack kennedy. That was a great line but we lose what is the substance of what we are talking. About what is so important is democracy. Democracy right now is imperiled. So i think these debates are still important. Many people will watch the debates, but unfortunately my fear is that partisanship become so high and so harsh in the country people are watching just to specifically cheer on their own side. Whatever side that might be. And after the debate there really is no objective winner or loser because its only going to be viewed through the prism of partisan politics. Gotcha moments. Newton, i wonder what you think about that. I know that youve spoken in the past, and written in the past about the gotcha moment season control of things. But what is your sense of what the debate might do now and what you are afraid it might break down into . You have got to start with one fact. That is that you cant make people debate. We dont have a gun to say youre going to show up at this time and you want to participate. This has to be worked out. And what the candidates want are short, two minute answers. The Debate Commission has changed that. And we did it largely because jim layer, repeatedly said we should change the format. Very much along the line that youre suggesting. Except not one subject but a few subjects. We have an hour and a half of debate. If you saw our first debate tuesday night. The moderator, chris wallace, has already announced to the public, not to the candidate, but the subject will be in 15 minute segments, rather than two minute answers. I would like myself if it were longer than that, what we want, what is the purpose of the debate . The purpose of the debate is not for the candidate, its for the voters. Thats for the voters to learn more about the candidates. What they think. How they think. Whether you can trust them. Whether you can believe what they say. For you to get an impression directly. Going back to when i was in school. The beginning of democracy, i understood what the greeks thought. You could not have a democracy with more than 30,000 people. Why 30,000 . Because that was the number of people who could assemble on a hill and athens. And here one person speak. But what have you got . Youve got the United States of america with 330 voting people scattered across the country continent in alaska and hawaii. But thats the one way that people can hear 1 speak at onetime. So weve got used television that we can, and radio for people to learn about the candidates. And the purpose of the debates and i keep emphasizing its not to serve the candidates, but to serve the voters. And that is what we try to do. I think its interesting. Go ahead. I think its really interesting that theres been this tension over whether or not televised debates can serve information. Should they be can they be a reliable source of information for the voters . And in fact this has been something that ive seen debated in every single year that debates have actually happened. Or whether they be discussed as happening. And throughout 1960 people were disappointed. They dont get enough out of the candidates. They thought that neither of them went into more than they did during their campaign speeches. During the 76, and into the eighties, there is this constant criticism that theres just these two press conferences that are happening, going back and forth. So i think this frustration over not getting information for the voters has always been there. But on the other hand i wonder if there is another way to think about the debates. Greenberg wrote a really good article about this in 2009. More he talks about debates as this opportunity versus engagement. I think its a really interesting way to see that yes, you may be cheering on your candidates. And you may not really be fully listening to the other side. There may be that partisan lens that comes into how you are understanding that. I think thats especially perhaps gonna happen this year. People are watching it while they are on twitter. They are engaging in that spin process immediately. I think that partisan lens may sheep that experience. But it does bring people together into talk about the campaigns. Talk about their candidates. So it does encourage civic rituals. I think that could be something that there may be problems with that but it does help people engage in the political process. So it creates a we, but it may be a really argumentative fraught we. So its good to fuel conversation and that needs to happen for a functioning democracy. And i think that again, im trying to have a positive attitude about this, i do think that these debates could help at this particular moment because the candidates or not interact with one another. And because of covid19, there is so much being used in terms of advertisements that are prepackaged, that are very carefully crafted and vetted before they go out there to the broader public. So this might be an opportunity for people to get out of those different echo chambers. Actually see the candidates react. Again its brief. Its a brief hour and a half where people are all watching the same thing. And i do think again the partisan filters might really underline the potential but there is that potential. I would say unfortunately. No i would disagree because i think right now we are observing whats happening out on the streets in america, and protest. Whats happening in terms of our government as well. The lies and the myths and the obfuscations. We are in a transformative moment, and this debate is not going to bring the nation closer together. Now. What we can hope for is in the future, that we try to set up institutions that strengthen our democracy. That strengthen our civic culture. But right now we are in very, very harsh times. And this debate, if anything is going to amplify unfortunate peoples preexisting echo chambers. We see this in the data as well. The data about these different hardcore issues. Even the fact that werent have one of the topics be about cities and violence. These arent even dog whistles anymore. These are open whistles. This isnt about racial votes. We evolved from nixon in 68 to 2020, where we are open with our racial division. Our racial strife. Its very impactful visavis the portion of the electorate thats very vulnerable to the messages and wants to hear messages about racism and the portion of the letter is reaching towards what we are now calling anti racism, social justice, in a big way. I definitely think if we see, we all know this because of the discourse of television and cable news, twitter instagram. We are living in two different nations. Those to defer nations in certain ways are testified as they were on the eve and after the civil war. I dont think the debate, the way its setup and the candidates that we have are going to somehow be able to bridge that divide. And anything if anything this is good to amplify the preexisting conditions that we have. Will that continue in the future . Not necessarily. We can make a different future. We can have a different future but right now we are all too fixed in the moment on the ideological polls that got us to this moment. If somehow you noticed tuesday night in subsequent debates to unravel, untie that not, that disagreement over what a season should be. What does american identity mean. What does it mean to be american in 2020 . The pandemic is a year of play, its a year of protest and its also a year of opportunity. This provides us all with competing visions of reality. Some of us interpret the pandemic differently. Some of us think its a hoax. Others really think and believe in science. Some of us to put the protests as a beautiful reimagining of american democracy. Others interpret the protests as the fall of civil society. Theres no way these debates can get those two competing visions together. The hope though, is that in the aftermath of this debate that maybe 2020 is fever, and a fever has to break. And once that fever breaks, a kind of empathy between both sides can come, and forces all to strengthen these institutions, to rethink and reimagine the institutions, but to strengthen the institutions of american democracy that we all, not all of us, but some of us hold so dear. Just a cut in. Those are excellent, excellent point and i absolutely agree with. You i want to emphasize that i dont think the debate will solve all of this. But do you think its productive to have two candidates who talk at each other, and their audiences are hearing such Different Things . Or would it be productive to have them actually, again, whether or not theyre debating, but to exchange it for narratives. To try to call one another out on the blatant information that of course the president frequently tries to advance on some of these issues. At least having people of all different political stripes seeing an effort to uncover that, and call that out and call it into question. Give me as a productive opportunity for that . I think we have to have the debates. Its part of a functioning democracy. My fear is that in 2020 with the political reckoning will have two candidates that talk past each other, and what that does to sides. We are in extraordinary moment in American History because in the past we have had candidates who have disliked each. Other we have had candidates who have had sharp ideological divide with each other. In a cohesive way weve had candidates who agree on the political reality. There was an objective political reality that they interpreted differently, or they could agree on that political reality. I think what we are seeing that was that we cant even agree on political reality. We have a president who is saying he gets a plus for the handling of the pandemic, and we have tens of millions of americans who agree with that. Where i think in the past week could have had more people agree objectively, no. No the pandemic irrespective of ideology has not been effectively handled by the federal government, and by this president. But the very fact that you have that means that we have these competing realities, and unfortunately right now we have doubled the and on what we believe. Both sides have doubled down on what they believe. And what that has produced is produced some of the most Divisive Political rhetoric in American History, that goes back to the civil war and reconstruction which has also produced a real anger and morning from both sides of the ideological aisle. Both sides. There was a great book from the american. Right i will tell you from the context of ruth peter ginsburg, in the context of 2020, there is anger and mourning threaten america in the american right and the mccain left and the two candidates speaking past tether, and really being angry at each other passionately and not empathizing with each other. Although i will argue that one candidate has shown more empathy than the other, that really continues to amplify our division. But in 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. Go ahead and weigh in because weve got two different views here. My hunch is and im going to deal with one issue. And thats the pandemic. I think the most important thing that could come out of tuesday or the series of debates, is how different views are with the pandemic. There is a very Sharp Division as you point out, as both of you point out, in this country and many issues, but particularly on that. What i think the debate will do, or the debates will do, is show the American People how two candidates deal, or proposed to deal today, in the future with a pandemic. There are going to be very different views. I think thats the best part of a debate. We will see and hear the candidates together, dealing with the same issue. Most of the time you meet with the commercials. With the amount of money spent on politics there really isnt much available for you indepth. Im hoping that what we will see in the pandemic is indepth discussion of what should be done in the eyes of both candidates. I would encourage everyone to watch for it on tuesday. So in the spontaneity, you are suggesting that even if we live in the world that neil described were we being up against each other, in the banging up process the spontaneity will tell us something about where we are, the clashing in and of itself will be important and educational and even if people dont come away transformed about whatever side there on. Evil either you believe in science or you dont. A proposition. I think this is going to clarify that. That would be good. Let me ask you all one more question and then i want to segue off into questions coming from the audience. Given that you are all colors of these debates in one way or another, what would you tell people watching this debate but to watch out for. If you can speak to the audience of the debates what would you say to them, audience members for watching them, what they should watch for it to help them evaluate what is going on. So i think one thing. There are a lot of things i could imagine. I think one thing to be aware of and is the power of spin that is going to be happening right away. This is something that you really see coming out for the first time of the 1976 election. Is where jimmy carters team is very actively taking advantage of you know one affords gaffes. The statement he made about Eastern Europe and poland. Eastern europe being under the domination of the soviet union. And you could see right after that moment. Carters team really capitalized on that, and then tries to turn that into an issue of the campaign. And really, again his team is working with journalists to raise their attention about this is a major stake and this affects broader things. From that point on, you see this idea of a spin team really shaping everything thats happening immediately after the debate. I think now were gonna see that happening in realtime. I think what is really key is to understand that. And again just to have more media literacy, to understand who is shaping interpretations of whats coming out and why. I would encourage people to develop their own opinions. But i do understand that there are going to be so many voices interpreting that this is a win for biden, this is a win for trump, and to try to be aware of that but started out as much as possible. That is very much integral part of the debate. Its not just a debate. Its how the debate shapes the media narrative moving forward and i think being aware of that would make people more media savvy consumers and citizens as they are watching this information come out. I would say that people should be on the lookout for youth version of our current political reality is closer to their perspective, objectively away from their ideological perspective. So the debate really should be about whats the Current Health of american democracy, and americas place in the wider world. Obviously its in this huge ear of pandemic, of protest and unrest, but also opportunity. So i would say the thing to watch 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 weve got tens of millions of americans who are out of work, who are hurting, we have seven 37 million americans who have Food Insecurity and who are hungry. Weve got americas for homeless. Weve got over 200,000 americans have died from covid19 pandemic. So we have these real, 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 a honest way, at open way, and sober way and has a vision to try to bring the country together. I do think when breakable met spoken to them for at the Democratic National convention, we really had this unifying call for this kind of civic nationalism based on empathy. I think that was a powerful call, even as there were some real challenges and obstacles that rhetorically he sort of flew over which politicians tend to. Do they tentacles to this Meeting Place like newton was saying and athens. Were going to call to this big city on a shining hill but there are many, many obstacles to get. There but think of what candidate has a potentially, because, again we are not right now in a national, unifying moment. We are soft to think and not allow our imaginations to be held hostage by this moment. What canada has the best opportunity to move the country forward and unifying vision . It doesnt mean that youre going to agree with the candidate and everything aspect of their policy, but it means that you think that this candidate has more empathy, more understanding, and speaking more honest about this moment it is so much of this moment is based on lies that we have told about the country, that was told about ourselves, that weve talked about jeff is that suddenly come to the floor for the entire world including us. We shouldnt shrink away from this moment. We should try to see how the moment can make us all better by honestly assessing how do we get here, and what can we do to move out of this mom 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 is the candidate have and how does he or she use it . The other thing you want to know is is this a candidate i can trust. And i believe what he or she says . Its just come and go. Issues change, but you want to know if the person has the ability and judgment, and mind to deal with changing circumstances, and with that policy, particularly when youre living at a time as we are, of nuclear danger, terrible pandemics, you want to know is this a person who can command my trust, and who i believe will reach a wise and fair decision. Thats what you want to get out i think. Thank you. We are going to segue from that advice to open things up to questions from the audience. Please use the queue and a function to submit your questions. Staff are managing questions if theyve already been answered or are not appropriate. For those who are watching this from Facebook Live please use the Comment Section to submit questions and the staff will try to answer as many questions as we can in the time remaining so center questions. I will start now with some of the patients youve already gotten. This is actually a great place to start because weve been so focused on the presidency we didnt really talk about the Vice President ial debates. Clearly they evolved along with the president ial debates. How much importance do Vice President ial debates bring generally and specifically in this election . I will say very quickly in terms of the vp debate, i think the vp ever since Lyndon Johnson let it not hurt you and not help you. Lyndon johnson in the state were i resigned in johnson, without Lyndon Johnson jack candidate couldnt have won. Since then what you see with Vice President ial debates, then quell, george h. W. Bush. It wasnt enough to lose the presidency but i think of the Caucus Campaign had run a more Robust Campaign they couldve actually won and have been able to utilize well against the campaign in a bigger way. I think our gore helped clinton less in the context of the debates, but more that clinton was 46 and a gore was 44. It was the clinton gore ticket where they took the bus trip around the country in 1992 showing a kind of i think joe biden helped broke. Obama i think biden provided a kind of season for people to see that breakable was 46, 47, but he had joe biden who have been this sort of Foreign Policy expert, and had been in the senate since 1973. So i think the Vice President can hurt you more than they can help you. And most candidates are looking for is a Vice President whos really gonna be a. People a Vice President whos going to do the attack and say the kinds of things that the president , he or she, might not want to say in a debate. So thats what i think with the tpp. The vp isnt someone who can really help win states. But they can help you come with versus a helpful vp. Shes the first south shes also a former prosecutor. Shes unbelievably intelligent like newton talked about check the mind of the person. And i think shes a very very effective divvied or. Its a very eloquent and eloquent in her speech. When you think of the vp, you think of someone who will first do no harm. Remember 1972 and george mcgovern. Thomas eagle tin in that debacle who had issues for that time in the treatment of depression which we now take seriously as emotional illness, that can and should be tooted and should not exclude people. You dont want to do that, you dont want to have a vp where something comes out and people say this vp is disqualified. The last thing ill say on that. Into doesnt eight Hillary Clinton had made a tactical mistake in that very close primary run with brock obama because very early on in the Clinton Campaign he said he couldnt satisfy 3 am litmus test. But as that contest became closer there were people in the clinton camp who said what about you getting both candidates. But clinton on top and obama on the bottom. The Obama Campaign responded saying she said we werent ready for the 3 am close to how could we actually be and that to get together . She is saying hes not qualified for the 3 am call. So sometimes you can attack somebody who later on you want to team up with the use of that into thousand eight. I always thought that was one of the most remarkable part of the campaign that people didnt discuss. Kitty your new. Dont to say anything about the Vice President ial component of the debates . In the 60 debate there was no Vice President ial debate. Subsequently, when the league revived the debates and 76 and subsequently we have always had our Vice President ial debate, which i think is important because the father, what the Vice President would be like in case he would become president. We have one Vice President ial debate and three president ial debates. Which i think is probably the correct balance but i think it gives the voter a chance to know and evaluate bearing in mind the possibility that that person the time the president. I just finished reading a great book on the 1976 election by williams. He makes the argument in there that in the carter or mondale, the first Vice President ial debate perform very well. Fell came off very aggressive. He talks about the tends to be the strategy, the attack strategy that he handled so well that the camp pain actually start to elevate him elevate his presence. Having a talk more on the campaign trail because he did handle that campaign so well and he really did connect with a particular demographic of boaters. I think that really underscores the point that youre talking about in terms of, theres a tendency to be aggressive. But there is an opportunity there to show your qualifications for the office, and how you handle the spotlight. Im going to move on here to a pandemic related question here. I obviously we have seen how the pandemic really transformed the production of the democratic and republican conventions. I have to say i am always fascinated by the mixing of democracy technologies so watching that technological improvise position i found fascinating. The question is how do you expect the debate to be impacted by the pandemic . I would say that the pandemic newton . I just want to say that the Debate Commission has had to change things drastically. Our first to debates were going to be up to universities. Notre dame and michigan both decided i think correctly they dont want to have a large crowd there with the pandemic. So we have had to adapt to what we think is a safe, healthy process. We dont know whats gonna happen in the future. The main point i want to make is the primary debates have audiences, which cheer and interrupt and commercials. The president ial debates have no audience that say anything. Or boo boo. We dont have commercials and theres a big difference. Primary debate i think are in many ways run by broadcasters want to boost their own people, and less involved with what we think is a pure, visitor oriented purpose. I want to make that point because people confuse president ial debates with Vice President ial pick invades all the time. I think the biggest thing that not having our audience is going to amplify is just the pandemic, and the idea that the federal governments response, the white house response hasnt been common. It hasnt been effective, its been a cruel and gruesome response. The very fact that if we have competent leadership will be able to not resume normalcy, because i dont think americas ever going to get back to the old normal. I think were in the process of trying to build a new consensus. That we can be safe. That we could be safe. We can maybe resume contact with each other. So i think the very fact that right now we have some sports teams playing in bubbles, or with very, very limited capacity, or with no fans at all really speaks to this crisis of leadership that the country is facing. So i think that the debate format, as do the conventions, really reflect these dire times that we are in. I think it gives voters another chance to assess the idea of honesty, had the mind of the candidates work. Just because the predicted meant that we are in. The science at least has told us we didnt have to be in this exact predicament. But we are in that predicament and the fact that theres going to be these unusual debates. Three of them starting tuesday, to me it just amplifies how dire the situation our democracy isnt. And i think millions of people, tens of millions who watch the debate. Hopefully the debates have the biggest audience in American History, and not just because we have newton here and because of ratings and advertisements but because of democracy. Those who believe in democracy, we want as many of those people to be involved in this process as possible. Vote as possible. As many to be active citizens as possible. I hope that everyone participating the debates can. I have to understand why the debates are fermented the way they are visavis the covid19 pandemic we may have had a alternate reality if we had competent leadership. Okay, another question. Not unrelated. Segue a little into journalists here. What do you think of the process of journalists in the debate process as its developed, and key question here, what should the role of moderator be . Who would like to weigh in . I think that such a fascinating question. Especially right now, so been with both abilities or put on the moderator. Theres a lot of expectation of the moderator serving as fasttracking and making sure that they follow up with concrete questions. Calling out the different candidates when they do lie about certain things. When they manipulate the different realities that we talk about so i think that challenge for moderators is tremendous. And i think the moderators again, just looking at this historically, they have tended to and you can add in here because hes been more involved in this process, but from what ive seen they really try to enforce the rules. They have certain questions that theyre prepared to ask, and they tried very hard to keep people on their time limits. And then i think its just more recently they weighed in in trying to ask some specific followup questions, and trying to make sure the people actually answer the questions. But it is a challenge in that capacity. I think that they have become a lot more involved, more expectations have been on the moderators than they were in the past . I would say that the moderator, it was suggested that one of the moderators. I would say yes. I think whats interesting about historian and when you think about how many voters were gathered in the country, and women voters. A female historian would be great. A woman of color would be awesome as well, and every debate. As john of color would be important, cultural history as well that could keep candidates honest. I think sometimes journalists are overwhelmed with trying to keep everything in line. Its like catherine was saying, youre trying to keep the logistics of the time in line. Maybe lies or half truths get dismissed. I think one of the things that our core reality shows us is that it is surprisingly easy to defy democratic norms. I think the last 40 years have shown us that. To quote when john roberts, Justice Roberts says hes a umpire he just calls and strikes. Moderators have to do more than just call balls and strikes. Newton is. This in the past anything but john kennedy and nelson we Flash Forward to 76, all the way to 2016 and 2020, you have candidates who walked the fine line of accepted behavior at debates, but within the political structures that weve had. What weve seen over the last four years and when we think about the senate and congress loosen over the past decades. Norms have been defied and journalists dont know how to respond to norms that are being defined. They really dont. Some journalists have responded but its also had turning because what do you do if you have a president who is lying repeatedly, consistently during a president ial debate . To say mister president you are lying . Its very, very uncomfortable. I think we need a new kind of perspective for moderators where its not really just calling balls and strikes. Its called holding any candidate apart from ideology further hatchets. For a sitting president may be one thing. Four former Vice President joe biden to be another. It will be a series of votes he did in the senate that you have to hold him accountable for as well. I think a historian would be great alongside journalism. If journalism is the rough draft of history what we do as historians as we clean up the mess. We clean it up by going to the archives and dedicated our lives to cleaning of the myths. Its not partisanship. We call out people from blue states and we call people who are in red states. We collect people empower and we call out poor people as well because we have evidence, and it would be nice to have a moderator whos used to doing that there will live. It should be someone whos at the enough to collude someone who in other instances they might agree with. Historians call them out later, didnt call them out at the same time as the debate. One of the most valuable things that the commission does is work with other countries. We work with 80 other countries, all with Different Levels of democratic process to organize debates and strategy. Its interesting to get the perspective of others because they dont all use journalists as moderators. We have different moderators. That he weight once proposed when we were beginning that debate ought to be connected on the halls of congress, and that the leaders of the Opposition Party should be there. Other people say they should be historians. Other people say they should be businesspeople. Teachers. A more Diverse Group. We have a very Diverse Group of moderators, but in any event doesnt have to be journalists. The history, im a great believer. I wouldve loved to be a store in myself. Why do we have journalists as moderators now . Its because the broadcaster started the debate and have their own people. Secondly, candidates want journalists. Candidates themselves want journalists. So i think in the future you will not see other journalists but the debates the fall in the future. Okay lets back away here for a little bit more of a general question about it pack of the debates. This person is asking how much of it influenced debates have on an outcome, and related to that, do major gaffes significantly affect the final results of a election . I have a very strong opinion about this. I can start. Ive got a lot about this because ive studied the 1916 election. Ive studied tv. There is a popular memory of the 1816 election that the tea be debates thats why kennedy won the election. I would argue that many historians, political historians, media historians, have documented and pierced holes in that mid. There are a virality of different ways that you have that survey thats frequently cited that people who listen to listen, that he wants in radio, the people who watch kennedy on tv that he won, does the supposed to show the role and image that tv played. Thats supposed to be based on anecdotes not real 1960 debates and their impact. However what i think is really key here is that those ideas, those conversations about how much of a difference tv debate can make can really then reshape political policies and our very idea of whats required and needed to run for office. You really see this with the 1960 election. Nobody believed that tv and the tv debates in particular determined the outcome more than return. Exxon he firmly believe this. And again historians have showed there are many other reasons why he lost the 1916 election but he believed it was because of these television debates. And because of his immediate strategy. That transformed how he thought about campaigning. How he thought about political power. And he really then begins to emulate everything that he saw kennedy do. He criticized during the actually 1916 election, he really makes the media the priority, in ways that he saw kennedy do 1916 so the tv debates are the core of how he thinks of. This all the archives talking about his media strategy, the documents show hes obsessed with the 1960 debate and that really has changed the way that he thinks about politics. And when he ultimately wins the 1968 election he tells a lot of people this is what i did differently. Then they start to believe in the power of media and television and particular. So i think these debates can really reshape norms. They can reshape cultural values. But not because of the debates themselves. But the way that theyre talked about in the way that they are remembered. You know, i would say that the base can shape, narratives media narratives, and i will go back to 2012 and give a anecdote. Brock obama met mitt romney. After the first obama romney debate many people argued that obama lost a debate. He seemed listless, he seemed tired, he seem like he didnt want to be there. Some people in obamas own camp said they felt the same way. There was a media narrative both in the mainstream press, and the African American press which i followed both very, very closely. That was saying that obama lost the debate and instead doing may actually lose his reelection campaign. And what you saw is one after a while, even though initially obama said he thought he had won the debate he actually conceded to this new reality. This narrative and said you know what i lost that debate. He promised his own people that he would be much better prepared for debates two and three. What most people felt was that by debate number two obama was back to the person people had expected him to be. He was back to his 2000 itself. He was that star that people needed. That his own supporters wanted him to be. Adversely obama goes on to win 29 states, and win reelection. He only lost to states between 2008 and 2012 are North Carolina and indiana. He goes from 31 states in the district of columbia to 29 states in the district of columbia. So what is interesting to me about that is this. No matter what a political scientist might say and i love political scientists say. No matter what the exit voter that it might say whats important about voting is this. They go beyond Ministry Corporate media and our connected to social media and connected to different constituent groups, that are vital. Including geo tv efforts, get out to vote efforts that are vital to candidates success or failure. So one of the things that people have to understand is that irrespective of whether you the candidate feel you won or lost debate, postdebate, you have to set up, whether it means you manufacture it or whether it is a objective reality, you have to set up a echo chamber among likely voters for you that insist you want the debate. That insist you won the debate so they can think they can go to the polls feeling confident and painful that their person, he or, she has won the debate and is going to win. Office now people might leader say look, obama was going to win no matter what the narrative of the debate said, because when you look at it he wins 29 states, he wins florida, ohio, he wins all these key states. But i would argue that the narrative of the loss if the loss had been sustained through three straight debates with mitt romney that the but come might have been different. The outcome might have been different because what happened in debates two or three actually influenced his own voter. It influenced him. They dont want to be connected to someone who was listened not performing. They want to be connected with the dreams of to doesnt. Eight he performed very effectively in debates two and three. People conceded that their guy had gotten his magic back. I remember headlines that said after the second debate the president has his mojo back. The president had lost his mojo against mitt romney but he got it back. I think that was very, very important for his success. And his successful reelection. Almost all the studies i have seen indicate that most people have made up their minds before the debates. By most i mean Something Like 85 . There may be, lets say there are 15 who are undecided. Their vote can be influenced by the debate but i think its a very small percentage. Most of the time the debate reinforce the view that the voter had before the debate, and for the small number they decide on the day of the election. Here is another moderator related question. How would each panelist advise the moderators . Is there a question that she would pose . Or a strategy that you might use to get the candidates off of their prepared policy scripts . I would ask every candidate why do want to be president . What are you worthy of the highest office in the land . What is driving you . What is your passion to either maintain the presidency, or become president . Right. I would in tentatively be listening to answers that go beyond ego and pride, and go beyond wanting to win. And that really talk about the people back. Talk about the grandeur and travels of american democracy. That really give me a sense of somebody whos gonna be a Service Oriented and servant orient leader because thats what you want the presidency. I would ask them why do want to be the president if its the president i would say, i would say why do you want to and why do you deserve four more years . I would actually agree with that very much so. I think that because, kind of getting into the nittygritty of the issues is just not possible in 15 minutes to talk about education. As penny was talking about earlier, really seeing these for what they do do and they offer the opportunity to push both of the candidates on this issue of values and vision. I think that was really important to call out and have a very specific conversation about that as well. I agree with that. And i would also add who at the president s that you would like to be like . Who would you, if you could be listed as being like president acts, who would president acts be . I love that question. Thats a great question, if one of the candidates answer Jefferson Davis its come to tell us a lot. Its going to tell us a lot about the candidate. The candidates love jefferson. The candidates that love robert elie. It tells us a lot about that candidate. It tells us a lot about that candidate. Okay here is a question. Some are wondering, can anyone Say Something about non televised president ial debates . Debates that preceded the one that weve been talking about. I would actually like you to talk about that joanne. Is there any way that you can talk about the debates, the Lincoln Douglas debates. I think so many people think of that in terms of setting that structure, that idea about discourse, or conversation or meaningful conversation. Is that what actually happened . Newton, you want to weigh in on douglas . Well the douglas debate had no sponsor. Douglas negotiated that debate directly with each other. And it was all done on two letters. So from the role of a sponsor, from the role of the voter it was much, much more information that we get our current debates. These were long debates. They were not questions from journalists. They were classical debates, where there was a proposition, who should be elected . And the rating, the literature of the debates, and joe and can tell us more. There was real substance there. The issue wasnt, as i understand the issue wasnt slavery. Am i right . It was a issue, but during the debates it wasnt the issue. So the debate versus the reality once again is something to think about and that election is in moving voters. We are at the last question here. Here it is. How do you anticipate president ial debates changing in the future . How should they change . How will they . I think the future its like what we all said. I think there should be a much more Diverse Group of moderators, including moderators, including people who are for. Moderators who are not able bodied, nonsense, gender queer moderators, black moderators, let next woman. All moderators from all walks of life should be part of it. It is a 90 minute debate we should have at least three issues and 30 minute bucks instead of 50 minutes or we can hear a vision for american democracy and American Society and a future for a vision about education, massacre serration, even about civics and master mark russi itself so think that should be a big change. And finally and would say where we hold the debates matter. I think we should have debates not just in universities but we should have debates that are in union halls. We should have debates that are in open parks and public spaces. We should have the bids that are reflecting the topography and the geography of the United States. Including in places that theyve never been before. Public schools that are African American. There are a lot next. That are indigenous. We need to think about that as well and not just have them at a Prestigious University for us to jiggly southern university. I have to think where theyre gonna debate. Heather going to debate . And we want moderators that represent the vast diversity religiously, economically, as likely of the country. Other thoughts on helping fight change in the future or how they should change in the future . Go ahead. Im very curious as to your thoughts because youve seen the changes and youve been a part of them. I absolutely agree with some of the ideas that was talking about. Im just really curious as to how those ideas face off against the demands of a debate. In terms of the, cost the security, all of those institutional demands that have meet them kind of take shape the way that they have. How can you tried to grapple with those concrete issues versus the demand for new voices, perspectives, and places . I think it will change enormously in the future. I would like to, having been at myself at North Western university which winds more debate awards than any other university in the country, i would like to see one that was a classical form of debate. I would like to see others, as neil has suggested, and as katie has suggested. But i think the important point is that debates dont cost the candidates anything. They dont have to raise money for it. Its taking money out of politics, and they reach everybody, and i think the important thing is one thing. They are for the voter. Not for the candidates. Let me take this opportunity then to close things here by thinking all of you for taking part, for sharing your wisdom with us this afternoon. For doing so much to prime the people who have been watching, to really be ready for watching this debate as they come along in the next weeks. Those of you who have been tuning in and watching thanks for being here. This is the kind of public forum that really feeds the democratic process. So thank you for being part of that. Thanks as well to the American Historical Association for really supporting this kind of forum and feeding into the democratic process and reminding us that everything has a history including president ial debates. To vote. And 1976, president gerald ford to debated his democratic rival top jimmy carter. The debate focused on domestic issues because of a technical difficulty with the audio, there was a 28 minute delay in the middle of the debate. Good evening im edward newman, moderator of this first debate of the 1976 campaign between gerald are four and a republican candidate for president
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.