History tells us, of course, that this transformation will not necessarily take place. Indeed, the odds are against it. What is more likely to happen is that this debate, like so many presidential debates before it in the age of electronic communication, will be scored like a beauty pageant, with the media, particularly the television variety, judging candidates on a range of trivial criteria. Will it matter how cogently a candidate states his position and effectively challenges his opponent’s? Or will their focus instead be on how many zingers he can land (Reagan’s “there you go again”), or his looks (remember Nixon’s five-o’clock shadow), or perhaps his general demeanor (George H.W. Bush glancing at his watch)? Will voters be allowed to focus on the content of the candidates’ positions and vision for America or be put more keenly on the lookout for humor and gaffes? Will it be substance or soundbite?
If it’s more the latter, we’ll have surely forfeited a rare chance to apply scrutiny to the areas that the candidates have made the twin centerpieces of their campaigns: the war in Iraq and the fight against global terrorism.
Any yet there is a glimmer of hope. While there is no doubt that the respective campaign spin machines will shift into overdrive within minutes of the debate’s conclusion, for a few precious moments Americans, if they are so inclined, will be able to judge each candidate’s performance without benefit of “expert” commentary from the talking heads on network and cable. Or better yet, they can turn off the set for the night and sleep on it (the debate, not the TV).
If the polls are to be believed, the ranks of undecided Americans is shrinking by the day. But no matter which camp we are in at the moment, a face-to-face debate presents a rare, unvarnished opportunity for honest evaluation of a candidate’s position and possible reevaluation of one’s own. It’s not to be taken lightly.