Just something to think about. Arguably, too much is being made of the Trump-Harris debate. Here is why. Polls and focus groups aside, this cycle is reminiscent of 1980, when Jimmy Carter – incumbent with high inflation, record interest, international crises, and doubts about competence – ran against Ronald Reagan, derided as an outspoken extremist, shoot-from-the-hip politician, sad generalist, and mere movie actor.
Look back at that year, and you see how many things we forget and should remember … now. Perhaps strangely, the “Iran Hostage Crisis,” Iranian radicals seizing the US embassy for 444 days – eventually releasing them as Reagan was sworn in, fearful – actually helped Jimmy Carter at first.
Helped him? Yes. Americans “rallied round the flag” – and around Carter – when Iran seized US citizens, threatening their welfare, sought to humiliate our nation. This perspective dominated primaries, allowing Carter to act presidential and sideline challenger Ted Kennedy (D-MA).
Carter’s larger strategy – which included a presidential debate one week before the 1980 election – was to frame Reagan as outside the norm, extreme in views, unhinged, over-the-top, too risky.
Many of the tactics used now against Trump were deployed then, attacking Reagan’s grasp of details, the tendency to be bold and uncompromising on key issues, too conservative, and “extreme.”
On the flip side, Carter – who came to office as a “change agent” after Watergate – tried to present himself as a continuing change agent, despite four years in office, eroding our national prestige.
Carter claimed to be a “healing” force, oozed compassion, spoke with great emotion, and said he was the realist, defender of the “middle class,” environment, and economy against big companies. He proposed higher taxes on oil companies, subsidies for solar and other alternatives, mandated wage and price controls to blunt inflation rooted in overspending, his attacks on oil, and bad foreign relations.
Net-net, the nation struggled with uncertainty about Reagan, a successful governor of California but not a president, and an incumbent who had the experience but had eroded the economy, triggering high inflation and interest, and hurting US leadership worldwide, from Afghanistan to NATO.
Polls rose and fell, but as the economy continued to slide and crises dragged on – especially in the Mideast – Carter accepted a debate with Reagan, a political risk but he had great detail command.
Here is the surprise. The two men debated days before the election – Reagan and Carter. Carter was a master of detail, spoke down to Reagan, waved his incumbency, offered untruths, and derided Reagan the actor. But Reagan did not lose his cool and offered big ideas, generalities, and persuasive realities.
Reagan was viewed by media pundits as having lost the debate. He was seen as outdebated by his scornful, mocking, highly derisive, and detail-focused opponent, a sitting president. In the first days after that debate, the consensus was Carter was the better debater, but that was not enough.
Why? Three reasons probably explain what happened after that debate – a decisive victory by Reagan, followed by Reagan recovering the economy, restabilizing the Mideast and Europe, bringing down the Soviet Union, and proving that he had a very real rapport with the American people.
First, the leadership potential Reagan represented, a hope based on what he had done in California, was ultimately more important than Carter’s superior command of detail and debate.
Second, Reagan’s authenticity, and clarity of his conviction in vital areas – faith in the private sector, small businesses, job creation, inflation, interest, affordable housing and energy, as well as in national security, foreign policy, public safety, and family priorities – took the cake.
Third, how Reagan held himself, with a degree of authority, not snideness or audacity, a sense of having lived much, struggled and overcome adversity, being attacked and survived, was a draw.
So, what does all this mean now – for Trump and Harris? More than most realize. History never repeats exactly, but people see what they see, and that is often not what the elites see. What the media says is secondary. Are debates of value? Yes. Do they often decide races, or does the number of assertions made, insults proffered, or energy really make the difference? Seldom. Just something to think about.
Robert Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, former Reagan and Bush 41 White House staffer, attorney, and naval intelligence officer (USNR). He wrote “Narcotics and Terrorism” (2003), “Eagles and Evergreens” (2018), and is National Spokesman for AMAC.
