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.