THE campaigns for this year’s US presidential election are not ideology-driven. They are personality-specific. In the past, political philosophy used to set the agenda for leaders running for the top office. Those were the times when catch-phrases were easy to chant and were sweet on voters’ ears; but now motivational buzzwords are gone, and sound bites (short sentences extracted from a longer speech used by the electronic media) of a few seconds have replaced them.
We no longer hear the phrases that used to describe a policy or a set of programmes as Abraham Lincoln’s generous invitation, “Vote yourself a farm” (1864). In 1928, Herbert Hoover, made a campaign promise: “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson cautiously advised American voters: “The stakes are too high for you to stay at home.” In 1980, Ronald Reagan asked: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” He again cheered in 1984: “It’s morning again in America.” In 1992, Bill Clinton looked futuristic with his point: “Don’t stop thinking abut tomorrow.” Similarly, in 2000, George W. Bush chanted: “Leave no child behind.”
The once oft-used slogans have now taken the form of sound bites. Now an intense political game planning occurs in every presidential election, where political parties try to use television to build the images of their candidates. In the age of ‘hypermediatization’, political parties tend to showcase their leaders’ personalities. In this regard, television has become a king-maker of sorts.
Presidential debates in the US have become an established tradition of American politics from the 1960s when the first ever confrontation between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon took place before TV cameras. Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy reached the White House, thanks, in part, to his 1960 debates with the Republican candidate Richard Nixon. The first debate offered a great contrast. The telegenic, young Kennedy made a much better visual impression than the make-up free, rather old Nixon, who was then recovering from flu. Radio listeners had a considerably different perception of the contest than television viewers. The 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate was seen by 66.4 million people, more than one-third of the entire US population at the time. The final 2000 Bush-Gore debate drew only 37.7m viewers from a population of over 282 million.
At present, presidential debates are seen as an important political device amplified by televised coverage. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is in place “to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.” The CPD is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that has sponsored all presidential debates since 1987.
But, CPD critics maintain that television coverage of candidates focuses on their personalities not on the real issues, and sharp close-ups offer physical characteristics, but fail to give a real glimpse of the candidate’s character. Moreover, political parties are often bypassed in the process. The current process excludes third-party viewpoints and that the question-and-answer format stifles the real candidate-to- candidate debate. The element of rational choice is manipulated by twin factors of personality and the mass media.
The event of presidential debates is an elaborately detailed production. These debates have ground rulers. This year both camps have agreed to a 32-page contrast that spells out everything from the size of the dressing rooms to permitted camera angles. These debates are designed to increase a candidate’s all-important television appeal. Shorter candidates routinely use risers behind their podiums to mark height discrepancies. Even movements are choreographed. This year, for instance, it was decided that the candidates couldn’t move from behind the lecterns (podiums). This was suggested by the Bush people, because Kerry did that in his 1996 senate debate against Massachusetts governor William Weld.
During the debate, audiences are kept unlit and off camera, because politicians are afraid that visuals of audience reactions may influence viewers’ perceptions. The candidates are allowed to have their spouses in the audience with a negotiable seat arrangement. In 1996, Bob Dole insisted that his wife be visible to him at all times, because her job was to remind him to smile.
US voters tend to forget most of what is said during the presidential debates every four years. But a few debate moments endure. Some are simply inaccurate facts or misstatements — such as when president Gerald Ford in 1976 asserted that Poland and east Europe were not under Soviet domination.
Sometimes a candidate can get into trouble without saying much about anything. Take for example vice-president Al Gore’s melancholy sighs during the 2000 debate with Texas governor George W.Bush. Or, in 1992, when Bush’s father, then president, checked his watch during a debate with Arkansas governor Bill Clinton and businessmen Ross Perot.
The American public, through these series of debates, assesses things like believability, likability and toughness in a presidential candidate. President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry faced off three times during the 2004 election — Sept 30, Oct 8, and Oct 13. This year the debates were on domestic issues like outsourcing jobs, the cost of prescription medicines, the number of disenfranchized minority children dropping out of school, gaping holes in the social security system and the cost of gasoline at the pumps. The international issues focused on the war on terror and nuclear proliferation — particularly in Iran and North Korea — and the situation in Darfur, Sudan. President Bush accused John Kerry of being a “flip-flop” over support for war, while Senator Kerry blamed his rival as the “first president in 72 years” to cause 1.6 million job loss.
