I count myself among a diminishing number of Americans who haven’t missed a presidential or primary debate in sixty-three years, which means I was glued to our large-screen Philips 21″ black-and-white TV set when Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John Kennedy first debated 63 years ago.
After watching what passed for a debate among Republican primary contenders this week, I Googled the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy presidential debates. I quickly found myself glued to all four hours of the last really worthwhile presidential debates in the last sixty-three years.
The Nixon-Kennedy debates were the first, and by far, the best of all the presidential debates that have followed. There were no well-rehearsed laugh lines, no zingers, no gotcha’s, no antics designed to upstage an opponent; just well-delivered, well-worth-listening-to debates of the issues of the day by two well-prepared and accomplished Presidential candidates. They both gave as well as they got.
One possible misconception about the 1960 debates was that those who listened on the radio thought Nixon was the better of the two candidates, while those who watched on television gave the nod to Kennedy. As it turns out, that is partially true but a bit misleading. The survey of radio listeners reportedly consisted of only 238 respondents out of 74 million viewers who tuned in to the first debate. Hence, the assumption about listeners’ reactions versus viewers was essentially anecdotal. Some observers have speculated that most households with only radio with which to tune in were rural households whose listeners may have found Kennedy’s (quite) pronounced Boston accent off-putting.
The Nixon-Kennedy debates were all about substance. In the first of the four debates between the two contenders, the set was stark and looked more like a prison parole board hearing room than a presidential debate setting. There was no audience, red-white-and-blue draping, flags, or banners, just the candidates sitting in wooden chairs in front of a gray cinderblock wall facing a panel of journalists. The panel consisted of Howard K. Smith, Moderator (CBS), Sander Vanocur (NBC), Charles Warren (Mutual News), and Stuart Novins (CBS). It was historic, and, considering the drama of the occasion, every debate since pales in comparison.
Each candidate rose and walked a few steps to a podium when it was his turn to speak. There has been an abundance of glitz and hype in the lead-up to subsequent presidential debates, but in 1960, the occasion was serious, and the nation was riveted by what these two candidates had to say.
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev had made threatening gestures toward Berlin, which presaged the 1961 Berlin Crisis. Our U-2 spy plane had been shot down over Russia a few months earlier, and there was still an active military draft in America. The mood of the nation was somber. Not since the Lincoln-Douglas senatorial debates a century earlier had so much of the nation’s attention been focused on what two political candidates had to say.
Watching the debates again, after all these years, it is clear they both had a lot to say. They delivered their messages well, and the debates probably determined the winner of the 1960 election. Nixon went into the debates with a six-point lead in the polls over Kennedy. Kennedy, the Senator from the relatively small state of Massachusetts, faced the Vice President of the United States serving with Dwight Eisenhower, one of the most popular Presidents in American history.
The press liked Kennedy, society liked Kennedy, and, most importantly, the TV cameras liked Kennedy. By the time it was all over, Kennedy had destroyed Nixon’s six-point lead and won the national popular vote by under 115,000 votes out of over 68 million votes cast.
It may have been a contestable election, as was the Bush-Gore election forty years later. Both Nixon and Gore were encouraged to challenge the election results. Both declined to do so in the interest of national harmony.
Lyndon Johnson, who in 1964 enjoyed a comfortable lead over Republican challenger Barry Goldwater, refused to debate, as did Richard Nixon in 1968 when he ran against Hubert Humphrey and in 1972 when he ran against George McGovern. And so, Presidential debates could have faded into history, having been tried once and abandoned for the next sixteen years.
Then, it was none other than Richard Nixon who may have caused yet another Republican to go down in defeat following a presidential debate. President Gerald Ford, in 1974, had granted a full and unconditional pardon to former President Nixon following the Watergate disaster. Ford was in danger of losing his election bid in 1976 to Democrat Jimmy Carter, and he decided to gamble on a presidential debate. Ford blundered, claiming Poland and Eastern Europe weren’t unduly influenced by the Soviet Union. While Ford’s gamble to debate was a disaster, presidential debates have been a mainstay of presidential elections ever since. Whether they have served the country well is highly debatable.
While the first Nixon-Kennedy debates were substantive and worthwhile, nearly all of the debates that have followed have contributed little, if anything, to a substantive understanding of the candidates’ insight or judgment. A perplexing comment by President Ford in his debate with Jimmy Carter determined the outcome of the Ford-Carter debate. While Ford was undoubtedly one of the less impressive debaters, he was known to be very well prepared for all of his high-level meetings, including those with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev. Whatever his reasons for not acknowledging Russia’s influence over its Eastern European satellite nations, his decision proved disastrous in his debate with Jimmy Carter.
Thereafter, with few exceptions, the presidential debates generally amounted to mediocre theater. Bush 41 has been dinged for impatiently glancing at his watch during his debate with Clinton and Perot. Al Gore was caught rolling his eyes and groaning with his impatience or intolerance of Bush 43’s answers to questions. Barack Obama simply outclassed John McCain, and Donald Trump, having little of substance to offer, just practiced trying to upstage Hillary Clinton. His antics were absurd, and his decision to follow closely behind her as she walked on the stage while talking was beneath the office he was seeking. Had she stopped short, the audience would have been treated to a rear-ender to end all rear-enders.
As they are conducted today, the presidential debates are of little value. They have deteriorated into performance art, and the performances are, far too often, an insult to the viewer. Serious debates, with serious debaters and serious and enforced debate rules, even with smaller audiences, would be of far greater value.
While my weekly column is emailed every Sunday morning to our subscribers at no charge, my podcasts and my annual ebook, “Essays For Our Time,” are also distributed to our premium subscribers for just $5/month.
Become a Premium subscriber here — https://oftheeising1776.substack.com/subscribe.
Recent podcasts have featured my commentary on the Trump Indictments, the Fox Corp Settlement, The CNN Trump Town Hall, the Hunter Biden plea deal, The New American Cult of Personality, and my interviews with:
William Bratton, Retired Chief of Police, New York City, Los Angeles, and Boston
Rikki Klieman, Attorney, Network News Analyst, and best-selling author
John Thoresen, Executive Director, Barbara Sinatra Children’s Center
Katherine Gehl, co-author of The Politics Industry and founder of the Institute for Political Innovation
Jazz artist Ann Hampton Callaway
Outlander author Diana Gabaldon
AI Data Scientist Lawrence Kite
Ryan Clancy, Chief Strategist of No Labels
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Joe Lieberman
Maryland Governor Larry Hogan
Become a Premium subscriber here: https://oftheeising1776.substack.com/subscribe.
While I did not see the Kennedy Nixon debates live I’ve read and watched film. I agree it was a ‘good’ debate. I support continuation of the debates whether it’s just the 2 major party candidates OR better incorporates a 3rd independent candidate. It is difficult for any moderator to manage outsize egos but one should still be able to discern whomever they favor.
👌🏾🙏🏾❤️🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 insightful indeed