October 16, 1968

Lincoln, Douglas Made Political Debate Obsolete

The Great-Debate-That-Wasn't four years ago during the Johnson-Goldwater presidential campaign isn't this year either.

A proposal that the equal-time broadcast law for political candidates be waived for a three-way debate between Nixon, Humphrey and Wallace has been sidetracked by Republican congressmen.

It was a predictable outcome.  The debate is a classic tactic of catch-up politics.  In 1964 Barry Goldwater was behind in the opinion polls, and he repeatedly challenged Johnson, to climb into the ring with him.  But the Democrats in Congress blocked suspension of the equal-time rule.

More recently in the Democratic primary scramble, Hubert H. Humphrey turned down Senator Eugene McCarthy's request for a debate.  And why not?  Humphrey was ahead then.  It was McCarthy who was trying to catch up.

The curious thing about the present debate issue is why the national press is giving it such a big play.  There was no great outcry when Johnson and Humphrey refused to debate their opponents.

Frankly, the whole concept of political debate is highly overrated - thanks to Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.  Those two brought debating to the zenith of achievement.  Every attempt since then to duplicate the feat has been pale.

As a Whig, Lincoln had served one term in Congress and then stepped aside in response to a three-way gentleman's agreement to let another man from his district take the honor.

In return, Lincoln sought a Federal appointment from Gen. Zachary Taylor for whom he campaigned strenuously.  When offered only a minor post, Lincoln "retired" from politics - a la Nixon --- for six years.

Then, as now, the plight of the Negro had precipitated a national crisis.  The Missouri Compromise had been worked out permitting existing states to retain slavery but denying the practice to the many new states forming in the Northwest Territory.

Senator Douglas, Illinois Democrat, won approval of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill which effectively repealed the Compromise.

Aroused, Lincoln returned to politics in 1854 and sought election to the Senate on an anti-Nebraska platform.  He was narrowly defeated by the Democratic candidate.  The issue Lincoln championed, however, was splitting traditional-political alliances.

The disorganized Whigs, Free Soilers and anti-slavery Democrats joined forces that year to start the Republican party.  The remnant of the Whig party faded away, while the Democratic party was so weakened that it took 30 years to recover.  One wonders if history is repeating itself today.

Lincoln joined the new party in 1856 when it conducted its first convention.  He soon became prominent in the "new politics" of Republicans.  Two years later he was nominated to oppose the reelection of Senator Douglas.  Lincoln responded to the nomination with his famous statement: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

The popular, incumbent Senator Douglas opened his campaign in Chicago.  Lincoln, in the audience, listened attentively.  The next day he rented a hall, rounded up the party faithful and replied to Douglas.

Douglas spoke nine days later in Springfield and Lincoln again followed him a few hours later.  By this time the general pattern of a debate had been established, and Lincoln proposed they formalize the procedure by appearing on the same platform.

Douglas was reluctant to the proposal but finally consented to seven debates - one each in the Congressional Districts the candidates had not yet visited.

The two men who faced each other in this memorable contest were at the height of their powers.  Both were adept at public speaking.

Lincoln stressed the moral iniquity of slavery and its denial of the fundamental promise of the Declaration of Independence that all men lead a right "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Douglas declared frankly that he did not care whether slavery was voted up or down.  To him the fate of the Negro was less important than the principle of democratic government in which each state could decide such questions as slavery for itself.

Large crowds attended the debates and patiently listened to political argument of high intellectual content.  Neither speaker talked down to his listeners.  Indulgences in humor or personalities were few.

The Republican cause was gaining from a feud between Douglas and President James Buchanan whose followers were opposing the Little Giant even more bitterly than were the Republicans.

The election was close.  The Republicans polled 125,430 votes against 121,609 for the Douglas Democrats and 5,071 for the Buchanan wing of the party.  However, the Democrats won a majority of members of the legislature which at that time elected U.S. Senators.  Douglas won 54-46.

Though Lincoln lost the election, observers agreed he had debated Douglas to a draw - considered quite an accomplishment for a relatively unknown challenger.  The national attention which Lincoln received as a result of the debates put him in a position to be named the Republican party presidential nominee in 1860.  Incidentally, half the convention delegates that nominated Lincoln were ex-Democrats.

Nixon is quite right in refusing to debate.  He overconfidently consented to debate John F.  Kennedy in 1960 and was defeated simply because he had a few beads of sweat on his upper lip and he appeared without makeup that would have disguised his "five o'clock shadow" beard stubble.

What would he gain from a debate in which his reasoned positions again might be subordinated to the irrelevant comparison of trivial personal appearance?

In Lincoln's day, communication and travel was slow.  Candidates were seen and heard only once by the voters, if at all.  A debate was theoretically useful in bringing issues into focus.

Television, newspaper wire services and jet planes today have made debates obsolete.  Voters see and hear candidates many times too many times during the campaign.

The assertions of a candidate are disputed by his opponent within the hour to mass audiences.  In effect, the whole campaign is now one giant debate.  A show case platform appearance may be some what titillating, but its usefulness to the voter is doubtful.

I would rather see wider use of free television time to individual candidates on a regular schedule, the purpose of which was to inform the voter rather than entertain him.  In this way a presidential race would be less of a "contest" between partisans and more of an educational process.

Author: Lindsey Williams