Debating the debates
Mark Partridge, writing on the Diplomatic Courier‘s blog, says I’m too quick to dismiss the usefulness of presidential debates For one thing, most voters have not been able to make it out to see the candidates stump. Lacking this first hand experience, any chance to see the two duel–be it using talking points or not–is ...
Mark Partridge, writing on the Diplomatic Courier's blog, says I'm too quick to dismiss the usefulness of presidential debates
For one thing, most voters have not been able to make it out to see the candidates stump. Lacking this first hand experience, any chance to see the two duel–be it using talking points or not–is worthwhile. I would wager that the few people who would scour speeches to learn about the candidates respective positions are in the minority and are political die-hards anyway. Voters want things presented to them, and this is one of the few times when they have a nice side-by-side comparison.
Secondly, the nervousness in the U.S.–and around the world, for that matter–is palpable. The first debates have focuses on foreign policy, as well as economic policy; but the situation is so fluid, and things are very different now. Both camps have presented brand-spanking new economic plans in the past few days, and this is the perfect time to explain them to the voters. The next president will be the one managing the fallout from this financial crisis, and giving these candidates a chance to enumerate their policies could serve to calm things–in a way that the lame duck George W. Bush has not been able to. People want to know what McCain and Obama what and how they will fix things–and they want to hear it from the horse’s mouth, if you will.
Mark Partridge, writing on the Diplomatic Courier‘s blog, says I’m too quick to dismiss the usefulness of presidential debates
For one thing, most voters have not been able to make it out to see the candidates stump. Lacking this first hand experience, any chance to see the two duel–be it using talking points or not–is worthwhile. I would wager that the few people who would scour speeches to learn about the candidates respective positions are in the minority and are political die-hards anyway. Voters want things presented to them, and this is one of the few times when they have a nice side-by-side comparison.
Secondly, the nervousness in the U.S.–and around the world, for that matter–is palpable. The first debates have focuses on foreign policy, as well as economic policy; but the situation is so fluid, and things are very different now. Both camps have presented brand-spanking new economic plans in the past few days, and this is the perfect time to explain them to the voters. The next president will be the one managing the fallout from this financial crisis, and giving these candidates a chance to enumerate their policies could serve to calm things–in a way that the lame duck George W. Bush has not been able to. People want to know what McCain and Obama what and how they will fix things–and they want to hear it from the horse’s mouth, if you will.
Of course. The candidates’ economic policies are in flux and Americans want to know how their future president plans to get the country out of the mire. But they’re not going to hear it tonight. This economic crisis is so massive and complex that even the most educated voters have a hard time understanding the factors involved. I would wager that Obama’s surge in the polls since the market collapsed has a lot less to do with the appeal of his economic plans than the fact that there isn’t an (R) next to his name.
How could Obama or McCain possibly explain how they plan to "fix" the economy within the strict time limits and artificial structure of these debates, except in the most superficial terms? Tonight we’re going to hear a lot of soothing noises from both candidates about how they plan to create jobs, regulate the banking sector, and keep taxes on the middle class low. Then we’re going to hear some out-of-context quotes and votes that explain why the other candidate helped get the country into this mess. Which candidate a voter believes will mostly be determined either by who they supported coming in or who gives a slicker presentation.
As Dan Rather put it, "These aren’t debates…They are a ‘something,’ but they aren’t debates."
Joshua Keating was an associate editor at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @joshuakeating
More from Foreign Policy
What Putin Got Right
The Russian president got many things wrong about invading Ukraine—but not everything.
Russia Has Already Lost in the Long Run
Even if Moscow holds onto territory, the war has wrecked its future.
China’s Belt and Road to Nowhere
Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy is a “shadow of its former self.”
The U.S. Overreacted to the Chinese Spy Balloon. That Scares Me.
So unused to being challenged, the United States has become so filled with anxiety over China that sober responses are becoming nearly impossible.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
