Substance Over Style
September 30, 2004
By Bennet G. Kelley
you were picking a surgeon, would you select a surgeon whose strongest
praise was that he avoided any major screw-ups? Would you select
a job applicant who managed to exceed your limited expectations
over the candidate who truly did best in the interviews?
In the real world, none of us would make such foolish choices.
So why do we allow this to be the standard in selecting the President?
Consider the 1988 Bentsen/Quayle vice-presidential debate. Two
comments that night made a lasting impression. The first, obviously,
is when Senator Bentsen smacked a very green Quayle with his "you're
no Jack Kennedy" response. The second was when network analysts
declared the night a success for then-Senator Quayle because he
avoided a major screw-up.
Is that the standard by which we determine who should be vice president?
Woody Allen always said "eighty percent of success is just showing
up," but until that night we never thought that was sufficient to
qualify someone to be our country's second-in-command.
Jump forward to 2000 where George Bush was deemed to have "won"
the debates not on substance but because he exceeded the pre-debate
"C student" expectations of him which his campaign actively cultivated.
It appears that there is a higher bar for the presidency, as the
candidate must not only show up but also demonstrate that he or
she is not as dumb as you may think.
The Bush campaign is shamelessly trying the same strategy for the
upcoming debates with Senator Kerry - even though Bush has served
as President the past four years. After four years in office shouldn't
the standard be higher than "I'm still not as dumb as you think?"
It is time for an end to this "soft bigotry of low expectations."
We must judge debates on the merits and not like a beauty pageant.
A Committee of Concerned Journalists study of the coverage of the
2000 campaign found that the Bush-Gore debates were the number one
story of the campaign's final stages but only 11% of this coverage
addressed the substantive policy issues discussed. Instead, the
media focused on the sporting aspects of the debates and reported
on the candidates' strategies and whether their performance met
If the political media is going to cover the debates like a sporting
match, they could learn two things from their colleagues covering
First, any reporter covering a boxing match would keep score for
each round. Political analysts should do the same if they want to
talk about the debate in substantive terms. They can either follow
the boxing methodology which is based on hits, aggressiveness and
controlling the ring or standard debate scoring which is based primarily
on the strength of the argument and how well it is presented.
Second, if the Rocky Balboa/Apollo Creed fight from the movie
Rocky took place in the real world, the sports headlines would read
"Creed Wins Split Decision," and not "Balboa Goes the Distance,
Proves He's Not a Bum." Such an approach makes sense since, regardless
of the type of competition, readers want to know who won, who was
better, and what was the score.
In 2000, viewers heard analysts herald Bush's debate performances
for such things as reciting global hot-spots like Sierra Leone,
but what was barely mentioned was that debating coaches found Gore
won each debate. For some reason the media believed that voters
didn't need to know this crucial information.
With the first debate this week, it is time that the media recognizes
that these debates are not a reality game show but a job interview
for the most important position in the country. If this truly is
"the most important election" in ages, then we deserve to have these
debates judged on substance and measured by the voters' expectations
for the next four years and not pre-debate spin.
This means that the real question the media should address is not
whether a candidate exceeds someone's pre-debate expectations, but
which candidate performs best in their job interview with the American
Bennet Kelley is publisher of BushLies.net
and author of President Bush: The False Prophet of the Christian
Right which appears in Big Bush Lies (RiverWood Books 2004).