Tonight, President Bush will square off with Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry for the first of three presidential debates. The events will give the American voters a chance to see the two candidates field questions on a wide range of issues in an unscripted, candid atmosphere. For the first time in the 2004 campaign, both President Bush and Kerry will be exposed, shedding the layers of media bias, of scripted speeches, and of convenient photo-ops that aid in molding voters' opinions.
In spite of the value in providing an intimate setting for voter-candidate interaction, the debates and subsequent media analysis will offer a very poor indication of either man's ability to run the country. While debates appear to be focused on the issues, recent past has indicated that they have resulted in nothing more than a competition in political rhetoric. The events have become centered on which candidate can look better while actually saying nothing at all.
The media - and therefore its audience - has become fixated on gaffes, stumbles, and image rather than substance. Paradox-ically, this superficial focus has made the debate-effect more profound than ever. Now the image-conscious voter is able to turn a poor podium performance exhibiting a cold personality or slip-of-the-tongue into an Election Day defeat.
Four years ago, the presidential debates between the Republican Party nominee Bush and Democratic Party nominee Al Gore resulted in a consensus among media outlets and voters that Gore was a stiff, too un-charismatic for the White House, while Bush had trouble formulating a coherent sentence on his feet. No one remembers policy from these debates. Instead, indelible memories were formed of Gore's "lock box" and Bush's "strategery." It was an unflattering portrayal of both candidates.
The result of the 2000 debates was tragic. For too many undecided voters, the choice became less about issues and more about persona. Instead of discussions about a lagging economy and foreign policy, Americans were fed clips of image imperfections captured at the worst possible moment for each candidate. It is possible that voters swayed by these irrelevant factors decided the election.
Fast forward to 2004: Even in an ever-polarized America, everyone agrees that the winner of this election will be integral in shaping the country's future. Therefore, it is imperative that voters overcome the temptation to judge candidates based on image. They should focus instead on the issues at hand, because these issues never been more salient.
The ability of either John Kerry or George W. Bush to run the country is not founded on formulating a politically convenient an-swer in front of millions of people. The presidency should not be decided based on which candidate is more "presidential" when the camera is rolling. Rather, the Chief Executive requires a strong leader with a plan, one with a coherent domestic and foreign policy. This being said, the most important "presidential" qualities may only manifest themselves to the public through action, rendering rhetoric inconsequential. For Americans to make the right choice in November, the election must be won on these grounds.
It has been argued that, had television existed in the early-1930s, the American people would never have elected a wheelchair-ridden president. Franklin Delano Roosevelt entered the White House to run a desperate country in dire need for direction at a time of unprecedented instability. His guiding hand and activist policies helped pull the nation out of the doldrums of the Great Depression and into a new era of prosperity. The remnants of Roosevelt's policies remain today, over 70 years after he took office.
The 2004 election will be the most important American decision since Roosevelt took office. Would you elect a man in a wheelchair, basing your vote on virtue rather than appearance? Would he get your vote if he was unable to stand at his podium tonight? You will never have to answer these questions because such a situation will never again occur. The American image obsession fundamentally cripples its rationality. In a wheel chair, Roosevelt would not have even been nominated for president in the year 2004, regardless of the fact he was the greatest leader this nation has ever seen.
Thus, the debates are a potentially counterproductive medium for voter-candidate interaction. To avert this danger, it is vital for you to watch keenly and selectively. Or, better yet, close your eyes and simply listen to what the candidates are saying, not how they are saying it. Hear the message each is trying to convey. Evaluate their stand on issues and policies, ignoring distracting stutters and meaningless swagger. Then open your eyes and vote for the candidate that will most effectively lead America through its time of unprecedented uncertainty. Our next 70 years may depend on it.
Erik Johanson is a junior majoring in political science
