Election Debates
Latest Post
Better get used to silent audiences if you want to beat Obama
Newt Gingrich lays into the "liberal elite" to the delight of a raucous South Carolina audience
Ray D’Cruz
Republican hopeful Newt Gingrich honed a key message since the South Carolina debates: only he can beat Obama in the presidential debates.
Until last night’s debate, the message worked well. It combined one of Gingrich’s perceived strengths (debating) with the issue that matters most to Republicans (beating Obama). But the case for his superior debating skill became less persuasive after his poor performance in last night’s Florida debate hosted by NBC.
Gingrich has now threatened to skip future debates that silence the audience. His threat undermines his key message about beating Obama, because presidential debates do not allow raucous audience behaviour. Presidential debate audiences are usually comprised of impartial voters. If Gingrich wants to lay claim to being best placed to beat Obama in debates, he’ll need to show it in the sort of environment that broadcaster NBC set last night. But he didn’t.
Under intense attack from Romney, Gingrich was stunned. His performance included embarrassing pauses, meek rebuttal and a failure to respond. If the former House Speaker wants to claim the title of best debater then comments like this are not enough:
Well, look, I`m not going to spend the evening trying to chase Governor Romney`s misinformation. We`ll have a site at Newt.org by tomorrow morning. We`ll list everything — he just said at least four things that are false. I don`t want to waste the time on them. I think the American public deserve a discussion about how to beat Barack Obama, the American public deserves a discussion of what we would do about the economy. And I just think this is the worst kind of trivial politics.
I mean, he said at least four things that were false. We have an ad in which both John McCain and Mike Huckabee in 2007 and 2008 explain how much they think Governor Romney can`t tell the truth.
I just suggest people look at them. Don`t listen to me, don`t believe me. Just look at the ad with Mike Huckabee and Senator McCain and you will understand exactly what you just saw.
Responses like the one above won’t cut it in the presidential debates. First, he simply dodged the criticism, saying that it would be a waste of time countering the claims. No – that’s called rebuttal. Second, Gingrich referred people to his website. Will the 50 or 60 million people who tune into presidential debates really go to candidate’s webpage for a fact check? Third, he tried to shift the target to Obama. In the presidential debate, who’s he going to shift focus to? And fourth, when all else failed, he relied on vague appeals to authority, in the form of John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Not good debating.
In the post-debate spin Gingrich has zeroed in on one of his two pet targets: the media. It is of course a distraction tactic. In the debate he was silent. He couldn’t challenge moderator Brian Williams because Williams asked serious questions and created a serious environment. It was exactly the sort of debate Gingrich asked for repeatedly before the raucous South Carolina audience rehabilitated his campaign: substantial issues and no “gotcha” questions. Complaining now smacks of wanting it both ways.
The threat to boycott further debates is of course hollow. There’s no way Gingrich would forgo the millions of dollars in free advertising that every debate offers. And there’s no way he’d allow Romney to attack him in his absence, in the same way Obama has been pilloried in these debates. It’s an empty threat.
Of all the debates held to date, this primary debate was the one that will most clearly simulate the presidential debate format and experience – and that’s why Gingrich’s claim that he has the debating skill to match President Obama has been so badly undermined in the last 24 hours.
Featured Posts
With Prime Minister Julia Gillard confirming a debates commission today (15 April 2011), we take the opportunity to reprise an earlier piece on a new approach for Australian leaders’ debates. You can also read an earlier piece on the risks of establishing an Australian debates commission here.
Opinion by Ray D’Cruz
The following principles establish a new approach for Australian debates. They seek to meet the two central aims of election debates: to educate voters so that they may exercise a more informed vote; and to engage the public in the political process.
Principle 1 – There should be a sufficient number of debates to properly address the issues facing Australia.
Three debates will be necessary to ensure vital issues are not superficially dealt with or entirely overlooked. Even when economics dominates our single debate, it may only equate to 20-30 minutes discussion. This is plainly inadequate for an issue voters label most likely to determine their vote. Education and health receive cursory attention and issues such as foreign affairs, trade and indigenous affairs are usually ignored altogether. A sufficient number of debates is starting point for a new approach.
Principle 2 – Debates should be spaced evenly through the campaign so that major policies can be debated.
Usually the single debate takes place early in the campaign. The upside is that a larger proportion of the audience have not determined their vote – so the debate may count. The downside is that the debate takes place before many policies are released – and the debate cannot test them. Given that our election campaigns are usually 4-6 weeks in duration, three debates on the first three Sundays of the campaign will maximise exposure to uncommitted voters and allow policy debate.
Principle 3 – Debates should be themed so that important subjects can be addressed in depth.
Themed debates, such as an economic and finance debate, would allow debates to address topics in depth. This is, of course, the way in which debates are meant to be structured: a topic, neatly framed, that allows both sides to focus on an issue and persuade an audience. Leadership debates have degenerated into a cursory glance at issues of fundamental importance. If three themed debates were held in 2010, we could have held one on the economy, one on social policy (e.g. health, education, indigenous affairs) and one on the environment.
Principle 4 – The format of each debate should allow sufficient time for proper argumentation and rebuttal.
There is a trade-off between the number of questions asked and the time allocated for speaker responses. Too many questions will result in short, scripted comments with no argumentation or evidence. A more generous time allocation for responses and rebuttal will force speakers to address issues in some depth. However, the moderator will need to ensure that the speaker remains relevant and will need to intervene where speaker seeks to convert the argument into some prepared speech.
Principle 5 – The speakers will generally be the leaders most likely to be elected Prime Minister, but not always.
Broad debate themes such as economic and social debates would involve leaders from the two major parties. If the third debate was on climate change and the environment, the leader of the Greens could be invited to participate. Involving a third party in a third debate is proportionate way in which to broaden the participant base. If a third party gains significantly popularity, as with the Liberal-Democrats in the UK, then there may be a strong case for involving their leader in all three debates. But we are not at this point in Australia.
Principle 6 – Questioning should be permitted from media, public and speakers.
Questions should be allowed from media, the public and the participants. Presently, only a few selected members of the Press Gallery ask questions. The Sydney and Brisbane public forums demonstrated that the public can ask excellent questions. (It also proved that partisan members of the public can sneak into the audience with the aim of scoring points – and this needs to be managed better). Direct questioning between speakers would energise the debate. Direct questioning was used sparingly but to great effect in the UK debates. Given our Westminster tradition, we should allow direct questioning in debates too.
Principle 7 – Technology should be used to increase public engagement.
Technology should be embraced in the same way it is in the NZ debates where voters can upload questions to YouTube that are then selected by media. Technology is a dynamic issue and its ongoing capacity to improve education and engagement should be addressed.
Principle 8 – An independent debates commission should ensure that the public interest remains paramount.
All debate issues need to be overseen by an independent debates commission. The commission should consult with parties without being beholden to them. A commission stacked full of party apparatchiks, such as the US Commission for Presidential Debates, will undermine much of the potential that these debates hold. The commission may include members of the media, but again, their involvement should be kept proportionate. If the public interest conflicts with the interests of media and politicians the public interest must prevail.
