Blogs and Briefings
Washington notebook: Political X-Factor
Connect’s Caroline Gordon is on sabbatical in Washington DC, where she has a front-row view for a very American-style election.
24 November 2011
David Dimbleby eat your heart out. CNN fires up its coverage of the 11th (yes, 11th!) Republican presidential debate, drenched in the kind of glitz and glamour more usually seen on the X-Factor. With the silver-haired Wolf Blitzer playing Dimblebly/Dermot O’Leary, and a teary, hand-on-heart rendition of the Star Spangled Banner to kick things off, it’s time to debate the American way.
The presidential election is still 12 months away but we’ve already had months of build up, debate and discussion as the Republicans try to choose someone to beat Barack Obama. Successive candidates have seen their star rise and then fall, and with just six weeks to go until primary season begins, there is still a question mark over who will win the prize.
The last UK election gave us our first taste of televised leaders’ debates, and we saw the impact that a strong performance could have on a party’s campaign. Over the course of this primary battle, and after almost a dozen debates, we have seen bursts of Cleggmania-type enthusiasm around four of the eight candidates. But the spotlight seems to move on as quickly as it arrives, and it seems just as hard for these aspiring presidents to stay on top as it is for them to get there in the first place.
This debate is on the topic of national security and, for once, the candidates seem to have done their homework. The twittersphere seems baffled - after numerous examples of fluffs and howlers over the last 10 debates, the candidates are finally raising their game.
While many of the answers are over-simplified, a Republican primary voter watching this debate can identify a clear range of views on foreign and domestic security concerns from across the spectrum of their party.
Mitt Romney, the long-term frontrunner that the Republican base doesn’t seem to want, is his usual self: composed and statesmanlike but subdued and wary of conflict. The current “anyone but Romney” candidate is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. He may have lost his entire campaign staff in a summer mutiny, but he has debated strongly and finds himself near the top of the pack at a crucial moment. He is revelling in his moment in the sun, but a moment of honesty on immigration immediately raises concern among the party’s conservative base.
Other former favourites – the Palin-lite Michele Bachmann, Texas Governor Rick Perry, and pizza supremo Herman Cain - are fighting for relevance and air-time, trying to remind the audience of their qualities, somehow.
Do these endless debates make a difference? Yes and no. They certainly give “Beltway insiders” and talking heads on cable news networks plenty of meat to chew on, picking over tactics, style and any perceived gaffes. Washington’s hyperactive political Twitter set gnaw on every perceived foible, fact-checking candidates as they go along and shaping the morning’s newspaper stories.
Bad performances can cause lasting damage – it seems unlikely that Rick Perry will get over his “oops” moment, in which he forgot which Government agencies he wanted to abolish. On the other hand, a string of good performances can help to bolster a flagging campaign – as Newt Gingrich is now finding.
But while I have a hunch that my DC neighbours are glued to their sets, I’d wager that the vast majority of the voting public are far more interested in the stars of Jersey Shore than Jon Huntsman’s views on Pakistan.
And of course the irony is that for a town that so obsessively talks about politics, Washington DC seems unable actually to deliver anything. This week, a bipartisan congressional “super-committee” established to identify $1.3tn in deficit savings - an 11th hour compromise agreed in August to prevent economic meltdown - announced that it had completely failed to reach an agreement by its Thanksgiving deadline. No-one seems surprised. What happens next? More bickering, political posturing and name-calling? Probably. And maybe a few more debates.
