The actual political content of what gets said within the American Presidential debates is so tightly controlled by each team's consultants and speech writers, that what often counts for far more is what we can call Leakage - the more subtle signs that slip through the pre-packaged and heavily stage-managed performances.
Advertisement
Two main elements here are the non-verbal cues of body language, which betray the true feelings of each speaker; and the gaffes, blunders and "misspeakings", or the occasional brilliant lines which may embarrass an opponent and display a charming degree of wit.
Political pundits are reluctant to accept the importance of such factors, because while they can be paid large sums to write strong speeches and slogans, and to script the phoney performances, they are severely limited, try though they may, in the extent to which they can improve on a candidate's appearance and what personal qualities he conveys to the audience. In the age of Reality TV, the debates approach the ultimate in Unreality TV.
Debating a dangerous thing to do
As Presidential debates can be of significant importance in the American system, fierce negotiation goes on as each side tries to get an advantage - arguing about air-conditioning, placement and height of each podium, and so on. Bush is shorter than Kerry, and wanted to stand far enough away for this not to be obvious during the first session, for instance. So powerful is this format believed to be, that many other heads of state take care to avoid taking such risks. You don't get to see a Mbeki / Leon debate, for instance; and nobody ever saw Saddam Hussain or Robert Mugabe directly debating anyone. In the British system there are regular head-to-head clashes in Prime Minister's Question time, seen on television, that let the nation see the two potential leaders face up to each other.
Bush, leaving aside policies, has an image of being a Good Ol' Boy, firm but genial, a good pal to have at the braaivleis. He's trying to look secure, calm, and certain. He seems to feel that being certain and unchanging is an unbeatable virtue, and doesn't recognise that to be rigid about the wrong policies, and unable to recognise error and correct it, is not reassuring to voters. When a woman at the second debate asked a brilliant question, inviting him to identify three mistakes he had made while in office, he blustered around and couldn't think of a single one. Everybody makes mistakes, and it's far more reassuring to have a President who can acknowledge them and adjust his policies accordingly, than one who pretends to be infallible.
Bush's body language spells disaster
Bush's body language throughout the first debate was disastrous. He always looked odd - irritated, puzzled, scared, nauseated, and it often looked as if he was having difficulty following what was being said. He smirked and sneered. After four years of jokes about him being unable to be coherent, and about him not being very bright, it really was important for him to avoid appearing to re-enforce those negative stereotypes.
His debating skills are strictly limited; he kept going back to repeating memorised phrases and slogans, whether or not they fitted the moment in the discussion, as if mere repetition makes a statement automatically true. But it was his facial expressions that lost him the debate and a good slice of his previous lead in the opinion poles.
Kerry looked presidential
Kerry isn't a handsome man. He tends to look cold, and, unless he's careful, there's a flavour of Frankenstein in his expression. But in the debate he looked relaxed, cheerful, confident and competent and unflappable. He has learned how to smile more cheerily. He listened carefully to Bush's comments, made notes, looked thoughtful, but never scornful. And he behaved in a presidential manner - you could imagine him as a President, something especially important for any fairly unknown man challenging an incumbent President.
Bush still looks peeved for second debate
For the second debate, presumably Bush's team had been working in a frenzy to teach him very different body language, and more appealing facial expressions. To some extent it worked. But he still showed unbecoming impatience, tapping his foot and looking peeved. He gives the impression not so much of only disliking his opponent, but that he dislikes opposition, and can't bear to hear someone else speaking and sharing the limelight. He also managed the neat feat of interrupting himself, protesting "Let me finish!" when nobody was stopping him.
The Audiogate mystery
As I write, there is still the Audiogate mystery, of the peculiar bulge noticed in the back of Bush's jacket, which cannot credibly be explained as bad tailoring, as his team claimed. What is interesting, is that they had tried to prevent the broadcasters from viewing the speakers from behind. Whether indeed this was a bug to enable people to prompt the President and tell him what to say (could that explain those odd expressions of his, that he was listening to his advisors?) or body armour, is not yet clear. As Bush once said, "They misunderestimated me."
The Vice-Presidential debate may have been scored as a tie, but Senator Edwards was able at last to appear as more substantial and knowledgeable, having previously seemed school-boyish with a toothy smile and not much else. To have been able to hold his own with the wily Cheney, was a valuable achievement.
We can only wait to see what the third debate is going to show us. But here are the things you can ask yourselves before making up your mind:
How do they present themselves and are they convincing?
Are they confident or defensive? Assertive or aggressive? Fluent, fumbling or formulaic? Genuine or plastic? Stiff or graceful?
Do they actually answer the question, or simply say what they want to get across? Do they repeat themselves?
Do they show themselves as flexible and adaptable to circumstances, or sticking to a carefully rehearsed script?
How often does Bush say "Flip-Flop"?
If you had to choose, which of them would you (a) prefer to invite to a party a your home?, (b) trust with your life and funds?
Bookmark with:
What are social bookmarks?