I forced myself to watch the Republican Debate from Tampa last night. It wasn’t quite the circus it’s been with a stageful of potential candidates. Now that it’s down to two major contenders and two pretenders it’s a more manageable scene. That’s not to discount the importance of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, who I felt added an interesting dynamic to the debate; it’s just that it appears that Gingrich and Romney have assumed center stage (literally) and the debate is really about them.
One of the comments that always follows one of these debates is “which one of them seems truly presidential?“ That’s a loaded question, as it assumes that people agree on what the term “presidential” means.
For some, a candidate is presidential when he or she looks like previous presidents. That includes physical appearance, form of dress, hair style, comfort level on camera and modulation of voice. I suspect that concept took flight in the John Kennedy/Richard Nixon debates. Television played a huge role in determining the outcome of the debate, and the youthful, articulate image of a John Kennedy against a more pasty, five-o’clock shadowed, uncomfortable Nixon. Add to that the technological improvements of the medium, including High Definition, and we find ourselves acting as TV critics, checking out the skin texture, coloring (or lack of coloring) of hair, clothing quality, whiteness of teeth, and presence or lack of presence of redness in the eye. It’s somewhat more like a beauty pageant than a political debate to some people.
But there are other qualities of presidential aacceptability. They include:
- moderation of voice
- eye contact or lack of it
- speed of response to criticism
- lack of whining or pouting
- clarity of answers
- sticking to the point
- nastiness factor
- appropriateness of humor
- choice of language
- ability to respond convincingly
There are others, but these are the ones that seem to be spoken about in the post-debate summaries.
The problem is that different people have different viewpoints on who has set the standard for presidential qualities. Ronald Reagan, an experienced actor, seems to be the standard for Republicans in this election. His swagger, folksy tone of voice, attractive persona and appearance, and well-fitting clothing help to make him a standard. His conservative bent doesn’t hurt either, giving him high points in the race to decide who is more conservative in 2012.
Bill Clinton was really at ease in front of a camera and could use humor to fend off criticism. His fast mind allowed him to respond to a question with computer-like speed, even though he could slow it down to accommodate a drawl or a “gee-whiz” speech pattern. The intensity of his eyes when he wanted to be serious and intimidating was incomparable in debates. And, his good looks, silvery hair, and flashy smile didn’t hurt.
Gingrich’s rumpled suit appearance, hefty girth and sizable head would seem to discount him from the physical qualities one might admire, especially against the well-dressed, greying at the temples, slimmer Romney.
But the presidential tag seems to have been adjusted to include snarly, biting, nasty, attack-dog demeanor, and … for some sad reason … it has become a measuring point for pundits. There is a constant call for Romney to be more aggressive in “fighting” Gingrich. (The same thing is said of President Obama.) Romney is challenged by debate-watchers to step out of his comfort zone and become someone who can spar with Gingrich, who is very much in his comfort zone when blood-letting is demonstrated. Presidential effectiveness in debates has moved (in the eyes of the audience) from Harvard lecture hall behavior to cage boxing and ultimate mud wrestling arenas. It’s not pretty, and I would contend that it is a false criterion for presidential behavior. Someplace in between these two extremes lies a composure which is aggressive and firm, but respectful of the opposition.
I try to picture the potential candidate in a room with ambassadors and heads of state, with the leadership of the opposition in Congress, talking out differences with heads of organized labor and economic leadership from Wall Street. Granted, firmness and integrity are required, but is there really a desire for a pit bull mentality? I think we’ve been watching too much reality television these days.
Photo Credit: Politico
