Introduction

Introduction


"There will be no debates," Vice President Richard Nixon commanded his campaign staff in May 1960. "There can be no conversation about debates. I won't tolerate it." Two months later, without warning, Nixon announced that he would debate Senator John F. Kennedy. Nixon press secretary Herbert Klein later speculated that the vice president "did not want his manhood sullied by appearing as if he were afraid to debate."

Presidential debates have always been dictated by such surprising considerations. Largely at the behest of front-runners who perceived debates as unnecessary risks, no debates occurred in 1952, 1956, 1964, 1968, or 1972. The presidential candidates in every election since then have debated each other, but only after a good deal of posturing and petulance. In 1976, for instance, Governor Jimmy Carter's TV adviser declared that, in order to equalize the two candidates' heights, President Gerald Ford would have to stand in a hole in the floor; for their part, the Ford negotiators insisted that the presidential seal be affixed to the president's lectern. These extravagant demands were ultimately abandoned.

In hopes of making debates a permanent fixture of presidential campaigns, the nonprofit Commission on Presidential Debates was formed in 1987. Chaired jointly by former Democratic National Committee chairman Paul G. Kirk, Jr., and former Republican National Committee chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., the Commission sponsored the presidential debates of 1988 and 1992.

By nearly all measures, the 1992 debates were an enormous success. They employed more formats, featured more candidates, reached more voters, and influenced more voting decisions than ever before.

Impressive as the debates themselves were, though, the process leading up to them seemed as chaotic and chancy as ever. The Bush campaign rejected the Commission's debate plan, and for a time President Bush was perceived to be angling to avoid debates entirely. Then, a month before the election, Bush and Clinton representatives negotiated a new debate plan, which the Commission accepted.

A campaign without debates would have been particularly lamentable in 1992. Newsweek aptly termed it "The Year of the Voter." All year long, voters forcefully directed candidates, handlers, and journalists to concentrate on issues and plans rather than image and horse race. Voters penetrated the political process via the news media (Larry King's call-in programs, ABC's televised focus groups) and via the campaigns (Jerry Brown's 800 number, televised conversations between voters and candidates). It was no accident that in the most viewed and talked-about presidential debate of 1992, the voters asked the questions.

In order to distill the lessons of 1992, The Annenberg Washington Program and the Shorenstein Barone Center at Harvard sponsored a conference on the future of presidential debates. The discussion focused on five questions. How can we assure that the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees will debate each other? Under what circumstances should independent candidates also participate? How should debates be structured? Beyond debates, how can the media help voters become better informed and more attentive? Finally, after the ballots are cast, what can the media and others do to keep voters involved?

These questions merit comprehensive analysis between now and 1996. We're pleased to have helped start the conversation.