Televised presidential debates have changed since Kennedy-Nixon in 1960, but are still crucial

Televised debates between presidential candidates can be decisive. President Joe Biden’s ineffectiveness against Donald Trump led to the decision not to seek re-election. The debate scheduled for Tuesday between Vice President Kamala Harris and Trump could be decisive.

Even the first debates of this kind provide valuable background information and context.

During the thrilling 1960 presidential campaign, Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon made history by debating each other on national television and radio. The September face-off in a CBS studio in Chicago redefined American politics in terms of the way candidates compete and communicate.

The televised debate was the first of four that were remarkably profound compared to the superficial visual displays and quick-witted statements of today. Each man made a relatively lengthy opening speech of eight minutes, followed by rebuttals.

These groundbreaking battles drew a then-unprecedented television audience. The estimated viewership of each debate was at least 65 million people, more than the 90 million who watched the 1959 World Series between the Dodgers and White Sox.

The first debate was supposed to be devoted to domestic policy, but Kennedy ignored this restriction. He repeatedly compared the United States’ performance in economic growth, education, space exploration and other areas with that of the Soviet Union.

None of the reporters who interviewed the candidates pointed this out. Since the time of FDR, working reporters had turned to the Democratic Party. Kennedy was particularly adept at cultivating them.

The Cold War was intense, and Kennedy’s emphasis on Soviet strength reflected the sentiment of the time. The Eisenhower administration had successfully relied on “massive retaliation,” but in a changing situation, pressure was growing to develop far greater conventional military capabilities. Kennedy skilfully exploited this, combined with the promise of a more aggressive foreign policy.

A quarter of a century later, Japan would bury us economically. Today, many attribute that worrying role to China. Successful politicians reflect current public sentiment and concerns, and times are changing.

When Kennedy began to speak from his chair, Nixon calmly and politely pointed it out to him. Without a pause, JFK rose and walked to the podium.

John Kennedy’s composure on camera, his polished style and sleek body language contrasted with Richard Nixon’s obvious tension. Television emphasizes visual dimensions and such superficial differences. In contrast, a review of the transcripts of the encounter shows that Nixon was more orderly and logical, more organized and more focused.

Nevertheless, Kennedy enjoyed political triumph. The political bias of television, newspaper and other reporters can only explain a small part of this result. The journalists of that time were far more professional and, as expected, tempered their own prejudices.

In 1960, a large portion of the electorate lived in the suburbs. While each candidate paid tribute to the American farmer, the sharp historical divisions between rural and urban and between workers and rich were becoming increasingly blurred by the enormous growth of the middle class. Old divisions were disappearing.

Kennedy presented a fresh, sophisticated image that seemed to better suit the new suburbanites. Writer Norman Mailer summed this up in an impressionistic but insightful article in Esquire magazine titled “Superman Comes to the Supermarket.”

Nixon consistently presented himself as more mature and experienced than President Dwight Eisenhower’s right-hand man. Kennedy used television to clearly profile himself and put himself on an equal footing with Nixon. Debates between the early contenders and the nominees are now a central part of the presidential campaign, thanks to President Gerald Ford’s generous, civic-minded willingness to debate former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter in 1976.

The epic 1960 clash between two talented politicians is a profound insight. You should rewatch the programs, especially if you’ve never seen or heard of the contest, and evaluate the 2024 candidates against this high standard.

Arthur I. Cyr is the author of “After the Cold War.”