According to the Boston Globe, former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite called
the presidential debates an "unconscionable fraud" and accused
the candidates of "sabotaging the electoral process." How
could that be?
In 1986, agents of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party agreed
"to take over the presidential debates." They created a "Commission
on Presidential Debates" (CPD) that would "have no relationship
with any political party or candidate," so they claimed. From its
incorporation in 1987, the Commission has been co-chaired by the men
who at that time headed their party's national committee: Frank Fahrenkopf
for the Republicans and Paul Kirk for the Democrats.
After each presidential candidate submits his demands to the Commission,
it hashes them out behind closed doors. When the negotiators come to
an agreement, they sign a Memorandum of Understanding that prescribes
in detail how the debates will be conducted--who, for example, will
participate, who will ask the questions, and how the stage will be arranged.
You may get the impression that the Commission determines the ground
rules, but in reality it only facilitates the negotiations, implements
the Memorandum, and absorbs whatever criticism may be leveled about
the debates. As a result of this Commission system, the candidates have
been able to exclude even popular third-party candidates. In 1996, Bob
Dole demanded to keep Reform Party nominee Ross Perot out of the debates,
even though Perot had accumulated $29 million in campaign contributions,
and three quarters of the eligible voters wanted him included.
Bill Clinton consented to Perot's exclusion in exchange for Dole's concession
to keep the audience as small as possible. Clinton thought he did no
longer need a large audience because the polls showed him sufficiently
in the lead.
In the haggling over the details, the candidates will press for moderators
who will treat them gently. Each side tries to keep the response times
to its liking and have controversial questions from the audience screened
out by reasonably neutral judges.
The result will be predictable candidate responses: Sound bites no more
than 90 seconds long, and no straying from a limited number of issues
for which the candidates have been carefully coached. The rules even
provide that the debaters will not disturb the pre-ordained procedure
by talking with each other.
Third party candidate Ralph Nader sued the Federal Election Commission
(FEC) for allowing the partisan CPD to administer the presidential debates.
On August 12, a U.S. District Court ordered the FEC to remedy the discriminatory
CPD rulings. The Court objected to the exclusion of all third party
candidates, as well as the exclusion of third party members from the
CPD board of directors and as ticket-holders in debate audiences.
In spite of the Court decision, the three 90-minute televised presidential
debates will apparently proceed as planned by the CPD, beginning at
the University of Miami on September 30. For the town hall meeting in
St. Louis on October 8, the audience will consist half of "soft"
Bush supporters and half of "soft" Kerry supporters, altogether
no more than 100 to 150.
Which candidate will do better in the debates? "Remember that debates
are …only superficially about policy," cautioned a linguistics
professor of the University of California. "You win a debate by
convincing the audience that you share their values and that they can
identify with you."
The President's acceptance of three debates, rather than only two, reflects
his advisers' confidence that he is particularly skillful in identifying
with the patriotic and family values of middle class Americans. James
Fallows, who has extensively studied presidential debates, observed
that "Bush's success has been partly about low-balling expectations--that
is, if he comes out still alive, he is considered to have won. But beyond
that is the fact that he has been very good at hammering his central
theme."