The first debate

Dear All,

It’s Trump vs Clinton in the US presidential race and the (increasingly) bizarre nature of this particular contest will, no doubt, be displayed in the first presidential television debate this Monday, September 26.

The electoral tv debate is a peculiar phenomenon of twentieth century political evolution. It is peculiar because it is so obviously not about substance, it is about style: what is important in this encounter is not well-thought policy or political argument but appearance, makeup, body language and hair. Oh, and of course sweat -- as analysts will often remind you in the case of the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon TV because, apparently, Nixon’s perspiring lost him the elections as voters regarded it far too unappealing a trait.

The impact of this televised sparring is considerable. Time magazine noted about the September 26, 1960 debate that before it Kennedy was a relatively unknown Catholic senator but "by the end of the evening he was a star."

In my opinion, the tone of these political debates is all wrong, as candidates are pitted against each other in what is essentially a student debate format. The declamation and rhetoric of the school/college debating contest is not really appropriate for an important political contest; yet the format remains much the same -- dependent on theatrical gestures, soundbites and attacking oratory.

The way tv debates are conducted is that candidates are asked questions but are given limited time to answer -- necessitating a race against the clock. For a candidate, the most effective way to use this time is obviously to spew forth the sound bites and phrases you want the media to use, while also attacking/ribbing your opponent so that they are forced on to the defensive.

Apart from the superficiality and race-against-the-clock factors, there is also the question of the general demeanour of the whole contest.

Some questions arise as to the commonly-used debate format. First, there is the tone and demeanour of the host/compere who is usually a heavily made-up tv personality who behaves like an up-itty school prefect or opinionated teacher and derides or scolds the candidates as they go along. Along with this (usually) patronising compering, the candidates are also forced to stand, usually at podiums. Why is this necessary? Why not allow them to sit down and have a discussion? Why do they need to be on their feet? Is it because the event is simply a test of how fast they can think on their feet?

I really dislike this trend of making people -- politicians, presenters, newsreaders -- stand up on tv. What’s the point? As a viewer, I think it adds nothing at all; it just makes the people in question look pretty awkward. And in the case of the presidential debate, why make two not-very-young people be on their feet for so long?

Presidential candidates are not generally very youthful but, as observers have noted, these two candidates are the oldest candidates in any US presidential race, ever.

Come Monday night, we’ll all be discussing the candidates’ clothes, hair, tone of voice, cut and colour of clothes and what the tone of their voice was… Trump will tell us that he wants to make America ‘great’ and Clinton will tell us it’s high time a woman became US president. And they’ll make gibes about each other’s person and campaign.

The debate takes place at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York and is expected to be the most widely-watched such contest as the audience is estimated at over 100 million viewers. It’s being competed by NBC’s Lester Holt who Trump had accused of bias by saying ‘Lester is a Democrat’ even though the moderator is …a registered republican.

It promises to be another dose of tv political theatrics, and hopefully will be entertaining. Perhaps we’ll even get some substance…

Best wishes,