The value of presidential debates

The Sept. 20, 1960 the American presidential debate between contenders vice president Richard Nixon and senator John F. Kennedy proved the persuasive power of visual imaging.

American media thought the master debater Nixon was “marginally better” in substance than the youthful senator. But the fresh, handsome, tanned and telegenic Kennedy won the audience over the sweaty, nervous and haggard-looking Nixon. JFK beat Nixon by a narrow margin, the voters probably looking for an energetic burst from a young president after years of being served by an aging president Dwight Eisenhower and a scowling vice president.

From then on, TV presidential debates became standard fare, the latest between US President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump attracting over 50 million viewers. Biden asked for a debate and the wily Trump obliged him. Biden thought the debate would turn the tide; instead, it backfired.

Pre-debate surveys had Trump leading slightly in the popular vote 51-49 percent. Democrats were trumpeting that the only thing “worse than a Biden second term is giving a Trump a second chance.” 

They had portrayed a “Star Wars” analogy with Biden as Yoda – the old alien who was wise as an owl and influential with The Force who trained Luke Skywalker – while Trump was portrayed as Jabba the Hutt, the slimy, one-ton, gluttonous crime lord who lived in an evil kingdom. It was a morality play propaganda.

But, from all objective indications, the debate was a disaster for Biden, creating reasonable panic among Democrats. Biden looked feeble, sounded weak in voice volume and sometimes seemed lost in his trend of thought, with an open-mouthed stare. He may have sound points, but his appearance and delivery were catastrophic.

Biden exposed his weakness and what in the past were mere fears and suspicions of his followers were confirmed by his dismal debate performance. He was not in the tip-top mental and physical states required of a presidency.

The New York Times editorialized that Biden should consider stepping aside from the race, on three grounds: (a) his mental acuity is suspect, (b) he cannot possibly beat Trump in November and (c) he may not be able to effectively run the country for another four years.

“If the threat of Trump is great enough, then Biden should pass the torch to someone else” who can beat him, and those who hate Trump to the bones asked Biden to step aside to ensure Donald’s downfall.

But Biden, his family and some Democrats instead dug in their heels and said the incumbent president is ready to fight and will win in November. So there.

The New York Times/Siena College surveys showed Trump increased his lead by six points, the largest, and a separate poll asking who they would vote for if elections were held today, answered 49-42 percent in favor of the Republican (New Yorker).

The Associated Press, on the other hand, reports that four of 10 voters and 45 percent of Democrats doubt Biden’s current capability and they said his renowned sharpness is no longer consistent. His 28 years of sterling performance in government had apparently passed its zenith.

Three of the six major swing states that were too close to call pre-debate – Georgia, Arizona and Nevada – moved away from Biden post-debate, and the three others – Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – highly critical of the White House were expected to dump Biden deeper into the hole.

Even New York, which has not voted for a Republican president since Ronald Reagan in 1994, is reportedly now a toss-up.

It is almost surreal, if not tragic, that America, a nation of 330 million citizens, is left with an electoral choice for president between two old fogies, a president who is already 81 years old (86 at the end of a second term) and a 78-year-old former president, a convicted felon facing a string of other charges.

The rather unkind description is that it is a battle of the “brain dead” and “a power control freak.”

Present reality brings us back to the 2016 series of brutal toe-to-toe no-holds-barred debates between candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Hillary used her experience as secretary of state (visiting 120 countries) and her erudite mind as a lawyer and author to fend off the offensive, non-sequitur arguments of Trump – resulting in Clinton winning the voters’ nod but losing in the Electoral College.

The Philippines’ version of the 2016 debates saw the unconventional populist rhetoric and the regional sentimentalism harping on the missed opportunities of the Visayas and Mindanao due to the Luzon-centric budgetary and infrastructure bias to favor Davao city mayor Rodrigo Duterte. Although candidate Mar Roxas appeared the most prepared and the charismatic Grace Poe showed grace under fire, the novelty, no matter how crude, of a Duterte in the debate stuck in the minds of voters.

Smarting from the 2016 vice presidential debates where he was walloped severely (especially by Alan Cayetano), BBM wisely skirted all presidential debates in 2022 and campaigned on one slogan (Unity) with nary a platform. Unable to scrutinize him through a formal debate, BBM, it seemed, won an unprecedented (though contested) majority vote. Less is more was his formula. No talk, no mistake.

Biden, on the other hand, the lopsided debate loser, is now faced with the grim prospect of being deserted by his partymates and anytime soon might decide with finality whether he will run, against all odds, against Donald Trump. Or give way to another candidate.

If Biden loses by a landslide, it may prove further that televised national debates of 60 minutes can undo even a sterling performance of four years. Debates matter. They take stock of the present to predict the future.

*      *      *

Zoilo Dejaresco, a former banker, is a financial consultant and media practitioner.