Alums back in the classroom for faculty analysis

Beyond the town-hall debate site and away from “spin alley” in the Athletic Complex, a lively, respectful discussion took place on the east side of the Hilltop Campus. Nearly 600 invited alumni and guests filled Brown Hall Auditorium and a satellite site in Goldfarb Hall to hear pre-debate thoughts and post-debate analysis from distinguished Arts & Sciences faculty members. “If the turnout this evening can be taken as a leading indicator, then turnout Nov. 2 is going to be enormous,” said James W. Davis, Ph.D., professor of political science and moderator of the faculty panel. The panel consisted of Paul Rothstein, Ph.D., associate professor of economics; Andy Sobel, Ph.D., associate professor of political science; Murray Weidenbaum, Ph.D., the Edward Mallinckrodt Distinguished University Professor of economics and the honorary chair of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy; and William Whitaker, senior artist-in-residence in drama in the Performing Arts Department. Davis opened the pre-debate discussion by posing four questions: (1) How significant are debates? (2) What does each candidate have to do in this debate? (3) What should we be watching for? (4) Does the town-hall format advantage either candidate? For Sobel, the change in polling data over the last few weeks clearly demonstrates that debates matter, because President Bush’s lead slid considerably after the first debate and now the two candidates are in a dead heat. Weidenbaum, also former economic adviser to President Reagan, said debates can “make or break” races. in Brown Hall Auditorium Oct. 8. On the dais were Arts & Sciences" width="300" height="62" />“Just look at the history of televised debates,” Weidenbaum said. “We’ve had candidates who’ve come from obscurity — or, in the case of Ronald Reagan, out of right field and move into center field — as a result of one debate.” Rothstein discussed the build-up since the last debate. “I think we now expect to learn something from each of them, and if they don’t meet that expectation, both of them will fail,” Rothstein said. “For President Bush, people are wondering if he truly is in touch with what is going on in the country. “For Kerry, as for any Democrat, he needs to avoid going through a long list of policies that remind people more of big government than of assistance, jobs and growth.” Specifically asked to give coaching tips to President Bush, after his struggles in the first debate, Bill Whitaker, whose specialty is theater and presentational events, said: “I would discourage a dismissive approach and encourage a move toward a more respectful, purposeful one toward Senator Kerry.” Overall, Sobel argued that we should examine the term “debate.” “I would say that these debates really aren’t debates,” Sobel said. “The candidates barely interact with each other, and they don’t address each other.” Weidenbaum added that debates can also be trivial, and that “the alert observer needs to be on guard to separate the ephemeral from the substantive.” Concurring, Sobel added: “The candidates have been pretty good at pointing out ideological differences between the two parties, but I would say that they need, in this debate or the next, to try to start connecting something about reality — data, facts, empirical stuff — with their theories, because their theories are actually quite uncomfortable for a lot of us who look at this and say, ‘That doesn’t quite jibe with the world.'” During the debate, the crowd was at times vocal, clapping for certain points or murmuring when in disagreement. And although the debate didn’t end until 9:30 p.m., the late hour didn’t diminish the audience’s desire for post-debate discourse. The faculty response to whether there was a clear winner was undisputed: It was a draw. On the whole, the panel stated that Bush did better, but Kerry didn’t make any mistakes. Davis, Sobel and Whitaker thought the president was still too strident, but Whitaker isn’t convinced anymore that it is an accident. He suspects the president’s manner — like a “tempered, caged beast” — may be “tactically” intentional. He thinks the president is trying to show the difference between someone who is measured (Kerry) and someone who will fight (Bush). Whitaker thinks Kerry’s manner is intentional, as well. He said, “Kerry would move toward the questioner and stand as though his message were, ‘Look, I am going to bring reason to this fight, I am not going to get hot-headed.'” Weidenbaum said that for the final debate, he hopes both candidates answer the questions. “(Moderator Charles) Gibson asked them twice how they would reduce the deficit in half,” Weidenbaum said. “Neither one of them answered, and I think for good reason: Neither one has the foggiest idea of what they’re going to do.” The audience was not foggy, however, as to the success of the evening. In addition to the faculty discussions, the alumni relations office offered guests dinner and drinks, photographs with Bush and Kerry “stand-ins” and a commemorative T-shirt. “We hope our guests were able to feel some of the energy and excitement experienced by students on campus this week,” said Laura Chauvin, assistant vice chancellor and director of alumni relations. “Our faculty surely gave them lots to think about.” Although the election is too close to call at this time, for these guests, coming back to campus to participate in the second presidential debate was a unanimous winner.