Exactly one week after the nation met Joe the Plumber, students at the School of Continuing Studies gathered Wednesday at the McCormick Tribune Center to hear a panel speak about the impact of presidential debates.
Newton Minow, vice chairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates, along with Medill professor Craig LaMay and David Zarefsky, professor of rhetoric at the School of Communication, addressed the benefits and problems of presidential debates in the forum.
Judy Widen, who took a School of Continuing Studies course on presidential debates, helped to organize the event. She said that the goal of the event was to “honor the roots of the whole presidential debate tradition,” and said Minow was instrumental in realizing this goal.
“We knew that Newton Minow knew more about presidential debates than anyone else in the country,” Widen said.
Minow has been involved with every televised presidential debate in United States history, starting in 1960 as an aide to Illinois governor Adlai Stevenson, who first advocated for televised presidential debates during the race between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. He went on to serve as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission under Kennedy. Minow was co-chairman of the debates when they were organized by the League of Women Voters and then joined the leadership of the Commission on Presidential Debates.
“I’m Newt Minow and I approve this message,” he said, kicking off the panel.
Minow, LaMay and Zarefsky spoke about the effect of presidential debates on voters.
“The evidence shows that they change very few votes,” said Zarefsky, who also coaches the NU debate team. “They strengthen people in their decisions.”
Minow said that the exception to this rule was President John F. Kennedy, who told Minow he did not think he would have won the presidency were it not for the debates.
The panel also addressed the problems associated with the presidential debates and the criticisms the commission faces.
LaMay said a common complaint is that the debates are “an impediment to third-party candidates.” He and Minow explained that the criteria for eligibility to debate allow for these candidates to participate, provided they have enough popular support.
“The assumption is always that there is some better way to do this,” LaMay said. Minow said this was a problem he would like to find a better solution for, but as of now, this was the best anyone can come up with.
To an audience predominantly clad in Obama buttons, all three panel members agreed that the benefit of the debates was that voters get to hear from the opposition.
“People would only hear the candidate they support,” Minow said. “This gives the opportunity for you to hear both sides.”
Nancy Burke, a member of the audience, realized the importance of this factor.
“If we are ever going to do something about the polarization of this country, one of the things I’ll have to do is bite the bullet and listen to Rush Limbaugh,” Burke said.
The panelists stressed educational aspects as the most important in the debates and declaring a “winner” to be less relevant.
“In the commission’s view, the voters win,” Minow said. “Winning is for football games, not debates.”
