May 22, 2007

HARDLY A FAIR MATCH-UP:

The Great Forgotten Debate: Forty years ago, Reagan taught RFK a lesson that ought to be remembered. (Paul Kengor, 5/22/07, National Review)

On May 15, 1967, there was a fascinating debate between California’s new Republican governor, Ronald Reagan, and New York’s new Democratic senator, Robert F. Kennedy. The subject: the Vietnam War. The debate was titled “The Image of America and the Youth of the World,” and was billed by CBS as a “Town Meeting of the World.” It was broadcast from 10:00-11:00 P.M. EDT by CBS TV Network and CBS Radio Network. It was produced by later 60 Minutes brainchild Don Hewitt and hosted by CBS News correspondent Charles Collingwood. The debate was watched by a huge audience: 15 million Americans.

There was total agreement, including among media sources who revered Bobby Kennedy, from the San Francisco Chronicle to Newsweek, that Reagan overwhelmingly won the debate. “To those unfamiliar with Reagan’s big-league savvy,” reported Newsweek, “the ease with which he fielded questions about Vietnam may have come as a revelation.” Newsweek judged that “political rookie Reagan … left old campaigner Kennedy blinking when the session ended.” Not having a crystal ball into the tragic year ahead for Kennedy, Newsweek pondered whether the debate might be a “dry run” for a future set of “Great Debates” between these two promising presidential aspirants.

The late historian David Halberstam acknowledged that “the general consensus” was that “Reagan … destroyed him.” Lou Cannon, in a 1969 book on Reagan and California assemblyman Jesse Unruh, agreed that “Reagan clearly bested Kennedy.” Another of Reagan’s first biographers, Joseph Lewis, recorded that the “tanned and relaxed” Reagan “talked easily and precisely without a hint of uncertainty or hostility,” and “deflated” the “anguished” Kennedy, who “gulped in restrained agony” when answering questions. Kennedy, said Lewis, “looked as if he had stumbled into a minefield.”

Lewis’s metaphor was a good one, since the hostile questioners treated both Kennedy and Reagan like war criminals. Truthfully, this was not a debate between Ronald Reagan and Bobby Kennedy. Rather, it descended into a venomous America-bashing session by a panel of extremely rude international students, who seemed to bask in their big chance to unleash their torrent of anger on the two available representatives of the country they despised. Newsweek rightly described the leftist students as “interrogators.” Among them, there was one American student, Bill Bradley, the Princeton basketball star, future NBA all-star, and future U.S. senator, who at the time was studying at Oxford, and appeared troubled and overwhelmed by the level of bile directed at his country. Also among them was a beaming Soviet student, clearly thrilled with what he was witnessing from this group of young dupes who had obviously swallowed every dose of Kremlin propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

Reagan and Kennedy ended up debating the group of students, not one another. And it was there that Reagan was so effective, whereas Kennedy was passive, meek, and apologetic. Alarmed viewers looking for a defense of the United States as anything other than history’s greatest purveyor of global misery were frustrated by Kennedy’s lame responses but buoyed by Reagan’s strong retorts.


Of course, he made a political carer of mopping the floor with patrician featherweights. A few years ago, C-SPAN showed an old Panama Canal debate--to commemorate the surrender--and Reagan just stomped Bill Buckley and George Will.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 22, 2007 11:07 AM
Comments

... the late historian David Halberstam ... and thus are hack writers elevated after they attain room temperature.

Posted by: erp at May 22, 2007 1:22 PM

Where, if anywhere, are these tapes archived.

I'm still hankering to see Reagan's Acceptance speech in 1980.

Though only 20, and not yet that into politics, I read a Mike Royko piece predicting Reagan's win simply based upon that speech.

He called it a masterpiece.
___

Say what you like about Bush being 'more successful' OJ, we may never see the likes of Reagan again.

OTOH, this Fred Thompson guy......

Posted by: Bruno at May 22, 2007 3:50 PM

Here's the '80 speech:

www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreagan1980rnc.htm

Posted by: oj at May 22, 2007 7:03 PM

I certainly wouldn't call Buckley or Will featherweights, but the most important point is that on this subject Reagan was right and they were wrong, and most Americans instinctively agreed that it was lunacy to give up the Canal.

A few years ago, Buckley wrote that Reagan invited him out to his ranch after that debate. As he drove in, he spotted a series of signs, each separated by 20 yards or so: "WE BUILT IT...WE PAID FOR IT...IT'S OURS!"

Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 25, 2007 3:03 AM

Right and wrong are insignificant to debating.

Posted by: oj at May 25, 2007 6:43 AM

OJ:

Riiiight. Let's say I'm a polished debater and I show up on one of those Court TV shows saying I was caught perusing your blog at work and got canned. Meanwhile, you're a slow-talking stuttering type who's never debated anything in your life (reminder: this is hypothetical).

Guess which side of the aisle the viewers at home will be shouting obscenities at?

That's not too far off from a few guys debating whether a canal we bought and paid for ought to be handed over to a country with a history of political instability. The majority is automatically on Reagan's side.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 25, 2007 5:23 PM

Reagan was a great debater. He'd have won arguing in the alternative. Good debaters do.

Posted by: oj at May 25, 2007 6:02 PM

Of course, you demonstrate the point yourself by arguing that the atmospherics surrounding the debaters would determine the results of your hypothetical.

Posted by: oj at May 25, 2007 6:06 PM
« MOVING FROM WEAKNESS TO WEAKNESS: | Main | THERE'S ACTUALLY AN AMERICA TO ASSIMILATE THEM TO: »