High School Assembly; Dissecting a Presidential Debate

You You You You

You Closed captioning of this program on UNCTV is made possible in part by a grant from the the Genner Foundation. Welcome to High School Assembly.

You know, they say that the debates are the super bowl of American politics. Well, using that analogy, today we're going to discuss game strategy and fan response. Who's making touchdowns and who's making fumbles? Because in this game, it's the American people that are the real winners and losers. And that's why we're going to talk about debates today. Now, with us to lead us in discussion is Robin Dorf, Dr. Robin Dorf. We welcome him back to North Carolina. He's been up north teaching at the U .S. Army War College and he's now a political science professor at North Carolina State University. We also have with us, Dr. David Palitz, a Duke professor of political science. Many of you might have seen him or heard him on national public radio, on CNN and a lot of the other media outlets talking about the election. We also have with us Jack Betz, the man in the bow tie. He is a political columnist at the Charlotte Observer. Now, perhaps more importantly, we have with us some great students who have come prepared with all sorts of comments and questions. They are from Triton High

School. Where are you guys from Triton? Raise your hands. So your mom and dad's can see. There they are. And we've got some folks from Chapel Hill High School as well from Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Pretty obvious. Well, we're going to start off talking a little bit about the history of debates and how they got started. Does anybody here know the first debates? Who were on the first debates? David and the West from Triton High School. It was Kennedy and Nixon in 1960. That's right. I guess none of y 'all saw that debate there now, okay. And what that did. I guess that's the first televised debates, yeah. And let's talk a little bit about how they started and what they meant for the country. Anybody want to take the ball on that one? Well, the first televised debate, the Kennedy Nixon debate, of course, was very new. Television was still in its relative infancy. So I think it was something that was a grand experiment. And probably

the testimonial to that is the fact that we went three more presidential elections after that without having one. I read that 88 .9 % of U .S. families that had a television watched that debate. Which maybe even better than the Super Bowl. I don't know. Did people watch like that now? I don't think so. The first indications after the presidential debate Sunday night showed that even fewer watched the debate than did four years ago. So I think the percentage of homes with TVs is much smaller now than it was in those days. Do they have less of an impact than they did? Probably because of that, I expect also that the actual audience is larger, but as a percentage of the potential audience, it's smaller. But we all have so many other things going on in our lives these days. Many more distractions and my guess is that the smaller, the lower percentage of those watching is

due largely to Americans' general distaste for the kind of politicking we've seen more of in recent years with the negative attacks. Right. Yeah, I would say two things. First of all, candidates were much less known in 1960. It's true that Nixon had been Vice President, but Kennedy had virtually emerged. He emerged in 56 when he was lost in the Democratic Convention. He tried to get to be Vice President, presidential nominee. And there were far fewer primaries. So people had a much, there was a much more eager attempt to find out what the candidates were like. Let me say on the question of impact, that's very misleading. The question that's often asked is, who won? And it's not clear often. But in 1960, Kennedy, the Republican attack on Kennedy was that he was too calo, too immature, too young to be

President. In fact, he was a year younger than Nixon. And so his appearance on TV, his ability to come off as equal with Nixon, meant that people then saw him as a viable President. And even though he may or may not have won the debate in terms of articulating positions and so on, he won it in that sense. And if I had to look for something comparable, if I could just say this, I would say in 1980, the big attack on Reagan was that he was a mad, bomb throwing, atom bomb dropping, wild -eyed radical, who couldn't be trusted to be President. So in the debate with Carter, he came across, as he was indeed, as affable, sincere, friendly, the kind of person you couldn't imagine ever doing anything radical. So even though Carter may have won the debate on substantive issues, Reagan won the debate, won the debate

on reassurance. Well, let me, they're telling me I need to say the phone number. So folks out there can call in the facts number, if you want to fax in the question. The phone number is 800 -555 -3120. And the facts number is 919 -549 -7070. Well, let me ask our audience here. I asked you beforehand how many of you had watched the debates and a lot of you had. If you guys were voting, would the debates have changed your mind? Anybody want to ask that? Answer that? They promised me that they were just going to be very vocal. Oh, good. I see, I knew there was somebody brave in this audience. Stand up. My name is John Huang from Chaboha High School. And I'd like to say that during the debates while I watched them, it gave me a lot more insight into the plans of both presidents. And also the way they presented themselves in front of the

camera really, like, will influence my decision if I had a chance to vote. Because I thought based on what Clinton reacted and how dull took advantage of the situation, I would probably vote for Clinton. You're going to be voting for too long. Two more years. That's right. Hopefully all of you will be voting. I know you have the opportunity. We've got a tape that producer Robin Miniotta put together for us about the debate. It lasts a couple of minutes. And we were going to watch that and then ask some questions once it's finished. I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself. Are you better off than you were four years ago? There are some moments in presidential debates that make history. Who can forget Ronald Reagan chiding Jimmy Carter? There you go again. Or Lloyd Benson scathing comment to Dan Quale. I serve with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. Or George

Bush's confusion over a citizen's question about the economy. I'm not sure I get it. Help me with the question and I'll try to answer it. What is it that lodges these moments so deeply in our collective conscience and makes the presidential debates so important to Americans? Well, that's the one time that our whole country 250 million people in their own homes can join together to see and hear the candidates. That isn't possible any other way. The ancient Greeks thought you couldn't have a democracy with more than 30 ,000 people. And they picked that number because that was the number who could assemble on the hills and Athens. And here are one speaker. You can't do that in our big country except through radio and television. And that's why the debates are so important. They're a uniting force. If anyone knows debates, it's Newton Minnow. And now for the first opening statement by Senator John F. Kennedy. Minnow has been instrumental in organizing every televised presidential debate since the first one in 1960 when John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon squared off

in front of approximately 70 million American viewers. President Kennedy told me after he was elected that he didn't believe he would have been elected without the debates. That's how important he thought that they were. That same debate was covered by Hal Bruno, now political director for ABC News. Bruno was assigned backstage where he heard but didn't see the debate. It was my impression that Nixon not necessarily had won but he had done quite well for himself. But television viewers judged JFK to be the clear winner. Bruno and the country learned an important lesson, a appearances count. And in that Nixon had simply been outmaneuvered. He had gotten tricked into not wearing makeup. When he came into the debate they asked him if he wanted makeup and he looked at Jack Kennedy and Jack Kennedy wasn't wearing makeup. So Nixon trying to be just as good as Kennedy said well he didn't want makeup either. Then about

three minutes before they went on, Kennedy put makeup on. So Kennedy came on with makeup and Nixon who had been sick came on without it. Today you won't find presidential candidates making that mistake. Candidates and their handlers leave nothing to chance. Everything from the seating arrangements to the stage decorations to the choice of moderators is fought over. Good evening from Atlanta and welcome to the vice presidential debate sponsored by the non -partisan commission on presidential debates. So what happens when an uncoached candidate slips by the handlers? And I know how governments, how American governments can be... Admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot's running mate in 1992, had not been trained for television. His visible discomfort with the medium torpedoed his message. Who am I?

Why am I here? How Bruno moderated the debate. It was his intent to frame his answer and I understood that completely. And the reaction to it of course from the public and the media was that it was some comical thing and it wasn't at all. It was a very thoughtful man reflecting on what this was all about. Compare that to this. So was this a debate out of control or a chance for viewers to judge the character of the candidates? In today's less structured debates, the format is crucial. I was intrigued by the debate that my colleague Carol Simpson moderated, which was a combination of the single moderator plus

the citizens asking questions. And that night, the most poignant question of all, the hardest hitting happened to come from a citizen. We have a question right here. Yes, how has a national debt personally affected each of your lives and if it hasn't? How can you honestly find a cure for the economic problems of the common people if you have no experience in what's ailing them? Newton Minnow was also won over by the role of the citizens. I think the journalists very often are playing inside baseball. They're getting into things that are interest only to the Washington journalistic community. I think the citizens are reflecting what's really on people's minds. I think that's a good thing. That format proved to be popular with viewers, but unnerving for politicians who can't predict citizens' questions as easily as they can, reporters. This year, during the primaries, candidates left empty seats at forums where they were slated to go

face -to -face with the public. This is a CBS News special report campaign 76. Still, despite all the problems viewers and voters over the last few decades have had an unparalleled chance to watch the presidential candidates appear side -by -side and spell out their vision for America. Very often, when I've been at the debates, everybody's interviewing everybody else after the debate. And I'm always asked one question, who won the debate? And I say the same thing every time, and that is the American people won the debate. I'm Carol Simpson. Good night. One of the things I noticed when we were watching this clip is how this year's debate seemed to be very civil, very prepared. Maybe more so than they used to be. Did you all feel that way when you watched them? Yeah. Would you rather see a little more conflict?

What do you think? Do you think the American people want... I mean, are they debates? No. You're right. They're civil. They're so civil that they threaten to give national politics a good name, but they probably don't provide as much entertainment. I think the real debate format, where candidates can ask questions of one another and rebut one another and interrupt one another, probably provide more heat. I'm not sure that they provide nearly as much light, but they're somewhat more entertaining to watch. However, I'll have to say I really enjoyed the two debates this week because it was interesting to see four experienced politicians who represent several conflicting philosophies, treat one another with respect and some courtesy and still make it plain how they disagreed. That may

help restore some faith in the political institution. One interesting thing, though, too, and most of us didn't see this, but the extensive hours of negotiation that went on behind the scenes on the part of the different campaigns as to what the format would be, what the rules of the game would be, shows us also how this has evolved from the Kennedy Nixon debates. Now, everybody's very familiar with the risks, with the dangers, with the potential gains and so on. And so most of the heavy work and the heavy carrying, I think, goes on in things that we don't see, and that's the negotiations and the final decisions about who's included what the format's going to be, the colors behind the podiums where they speak. They really have learned, the modern campaigns have learned what modern television is all about. Do you think we'll ever have spontaneous debating? Sure. Let me, I would say first, though, that any debate is better than no debate.

But the format is such that it encourages the candidates to play safe. Play safe means repeating the rehearsed rhetoric, the words that they're comfortable with, the ones that don't embark and undertake any risk. If you listen to a question, think about it, and then answer it, your answer can get you into all kinds of trouble. So, I mean, I thought last night's debate was perfect in this way. Again and again and again, you heard the same things. So, I mean, I would do away with all of that. Just have the two of them there that I'm asking each other questions. I mean, at the end of the first presidential debate, Dole said gave his net number address. He gave it incorrectly, by the way, so you couldn't get through. I thought it was interesting. But I would, if that had come, if Clinton had had an opportunity to ask, he could have probed to see if Dole actually knew what the net was. And Dole might well have said, yeah, I use it to go fishing or something of that sort. I thought it was

interesting also last night. And Sunday night as well, to amplify a point that David made, that candidates seemed carefully scripted not to make a mistake. It seems above all don't hurt yourself or don't hurt your party's ticket. And that may account in part for the reason that both Dole Sunday night and Kent last night did not take the bait when they were offered the chance to bring up the character issue. Both of them stayed as far away from it as possible. And I can't imagine that happening robbing four years ago. Yeah, I was going to say on your point earlier, I think that's the reason that the attacks on each other when it really spins out of control. And they really start as we saw in the vice presidential debate in 92. And you're more likely to see that the vice presidents don't feel they have quite as much to risk. I would argue last night I think both candidates were thinking about four years from now and their presidential possibilities.

But what happens is those types of attacks on each other are exactly the things that you can't control as well. And I think as David was saying and Jack too, that the desire to control the environment is preeminent in their minds. That's what they're really concerned about. And so I'd like to think it's this overriding civility. I have a sense though that it has more to do with trying to minimize the risk of losing control. We have cynics among them. Let me add one point. The increasingly in political ads, what you see are videotapes of the opponent saying something, which is then used to indict him. And so there's even greater fear now that if you say something untoward in a debate, this can be just extracted and used against you in a political ad that will be put on the next day. Right. So it's caution, unbelievable caution. We have got a call. A Jennifer from Bowie's Creek. Are you on the line? Yes, I am. Hi, go ahead with your question or your comment. What was the best debate ever and what elements made it so?

Oh, okay. Who wants to answer that? And to find best. One that assumes all of us have seen all of the debates to judge them equally. And I know that's probably not true for all of us. Let me, I'll try something a little bit different on it. I think there's a tendency to look back on debates that occurred longer ago and judge them through lenses that maybe are not fair, because we're looking at, say, from 1996 and looking back on the Kennedy Nixon debate, there's a tendency, I think, to jump immediately on that one and talk about it as having had some very special qualities. I'm not sure that you could really, I know that I cannot answer that question specifically. I don't know which one would be the best. My own sense, though, is that as we have moved into the era in which they are more and more controlled, it's less likely to provide the kind of information that some of us were alluding to here. And that's about the best I can do with it. I don't know which one was the best. I

think the ones we saw this week were not the best nor were they the most memorable. The ones that I remember most vividly is the vice presidential debate. Was it, was it 84 Geraldine for our versus George Bush? The Bush, I'm sorry, the Ronald Reagan Carter debate of 1980 was just really interesting because it did. It really did change people's view of a candidate that they were a little afraid of. I would say Kennedy Nixon. I mean, I saw Kennedy Nixon, not the debate that there was enormous anticipation. It hadn't been done before, television, fresh people, unexpected. You didn't know what was going to happen. If you were a partisan, your heart was in your mouth because how would the person you supported come off? The actual substance of the debate was silly. Much of the time was silly. I mean, people don't remember, but there was a lot of discussion

about Kimoyen Matsu, two islands off China and whether we should protect them, two rock promontories really. I don't mean to be unfair to these islands. There were classic statements like Nixon, right. Classic statements like Nixon saying, well, agriculture, what's produced depends on the weather. There were, I mean, a whole host of things that was sort of, and I could come up with other examples. But anticipation and expectation and the sense of thrill and excitement, unparalleled. It was a memorable, that was a memorable for me too because not many people may realize that North Carolina had a played a small role in the outcome of that debate. You will recall that those who watched on TV thought Kennedy won because he looked good and Nixon didn't. Those who listened on radio thought Nixon won. Nixon looked bad not only because he didn't have makeup on, but as Hal Bruno referred to in the tape. He had been sick and he had been sick because at a campaign appearance, just

a short time before the debate, I mean, a week or two. He had been campaigning in Greensboro and entered himself when he hit his knee on a car door getting into a car at the Greensboro airport. And he later spoke at the Greensboro Coliseum where I got to shake his hand and I thought to myself then he did not look well, but he injured that knee that he later had gout and that same leg. And I think it was an injury that plagued him his whole career. And it happened here. And I would have to say too. I was eight years old with the Kennedy Nixon debate and I watched it, but obviously there wasn't a lot there for me to judge on politically. But I think David hit on a very key point. The fact that it was so new, the fact that people were really looking to this format then and wondering a lot more what to expect. And then the point I made earlier, the fact that it was not until 1976 that we had another presidential debate. And by then, you can imagine how much energy went into trying to figure out how

to control this environment, how to allow the candidates to shape it more rather than the spontaneity and the uncertainty of that 1960. We've got a question. Let me say the 800 number because they really want me to. 800 number is 555 3120. And let's take a question. My name is Anna Hot from Chapel Hill High School. And I know appearances are a big part in every debate and that sometimes they can be decisive. And someone told me that Kennedy was shorter than Nixon at the time they debated. And yet he didn't make a point of it. And I know last night Bob Dole talked about how he was shorter than Clinton, not last night. But and I was just wondering if you thought that that played that was any big part because they had told me that Kennedy was the only person that I want he was shorter. Actually one of those strange predictors of presidential elections like the stock market and who wins the World Series whether it's the National League or the American League. There are all kinds of spurious correlations there

but it is true that's been talked about recently that the taller candidate has won the. The presidential race recently. I don't think it has anything to do with the image question per se that you're addressing. I would say that image is very important. But as David was pointing out earlier, I think stature less in the physical sense than in how they come across as of presidential quality. I think that to me is the more serious part of stature that matters rather than the purely physical one. So this is good news for Peret. Peret has got other problems. Perot's problem is that absence makes the heart forget you which is happening to him. The height, I love this. First of all the candidates try and conceal this problem by raising up the platforms in front of them and trying to avoid facing the other candidate and making the differences appreciable differences in height. But what's

interesting is that if you had asked people in this country a few years ago who was taller, Bush or Reagan. Almost everyone would have said Reagan was taller. In fact Bush was taller but they didn't have this image of Bush. They thought of Bush as a sort of wimp and Reagan as a sturdy big fellow. So it's partly that but I just want to say one thing about the Kennedy Nixon debate. There was a wonderful irony in this debate. Kennedy was a Nixon attacked Kennedy for being bellicose about Cuba. I remember this vividly saying because Kennedy was saying we got to do something about this. Cancer 90 miles off our shore. And Nixon was saying this is a typical example of an intemperate person who really is not qualified to be president because he doesn't understand front of this. At the same time Nixon was part of the Eisenhower administration which was drawing up plans to invade Cuba. And of course that's something that Kennedy supported later on. But so debates are full of ironies and contradictions that are not apparent at the time but become clear afterwards. Yeah we were talking about

Peret. I'm going to single someone. How many of you think Peret ought to debated with them? Hey good question. Angela McCall from Trotten High School. I just believe that it would add something more to the debates. His humor was pretty well another one and I just thought that it would always make it more interesting if you had more than two candidates running and debating. Anybody's opinion differs? Who doesn't think this is being the debate? Anybody you don't? Why not? Just going to have to use some Trotten High School. I believe that Peret didn't really have much of a chance of winning the elections so he shouldn't really have a chance to make. Hey how much do you get $29 million? Oh you can get that question. Well this is a question on another topic. When Jack Kemp joined the Dull Campaign he switched from supportive affirmative action to non -supportive affirmative

action. However the 14th Amendment, the Constitution states that all people are equal in protection of the law and it seems to me as though affirmative action is violating this. How do you think it is or is not upheld by the 14th Amendment? Okay, I'm glad I'm the host. That's a good question. I'm going to switch that for the debate on the Supreme Court. Talking about Perot. David's going to exercise that. Let me just say about Perot for a moment. There's a very interesting question here. The best debate that you could have would not be between candidates who have a good chance of winning because they have a premium on being cautious. What you really would like is a debate between people who have no chance of winning but who have lots of different interesting ideas. One of the criticisms of the debates are the narrowness of range between the positions of the candidate. Some sort of conservative Republican to moderate Republican, moderate Republican being Clinton. I mean

people could make that argument. The other question of course I would leave to my colleague. But that does raise an interesting point about Kemp's problem in this debate in that he had to switch his positions. Let me point out though actually last night candidate Kemp did speak to the issue in a way and that's without being long -winded about it. It's all going to come down to your belief about a quality of opportunity versus a quality of reward or a quality of outcome. And that's a fundamental debate that we have going on in our country today. Whether equal protection under the law means that we all have an equal opportunity to succeed or fail so that there is no discrimination against us at the starting block or whether or not we should have more equality and outcome that is where we are when the finish line is there and where we all finish. The answer to your question is that the 14th Amendment does not decide that and the Supreme Court justices will probably tell you that there are parts of that

that are a political question and they won't wrestle with that. It's for you and for me as citizens and our elected representatives to find out where that balance is between the two. Which is one of the reasons why it's so important to vote because these issues do affect all of us. And it will be interesting to see in this three and a half weeks between now and an election day whether the Democrats are successful in using affirmative action. I mean, Kemp's prior support for that and those positions on it now to drive a wedge between the Republican vice presidential and presidential candidates. My guess is they'll be careful about that. But there were several instances last night where Gore was careful to point out that Kemp had differed with Dole on a number of things including taxation policy and affirmative action previously. And I guess we'll hear more about that from Democrats. You

raised the issue of affirmative action as a constitutional and as a moral issue. And what's interesting here is that politicians deal with it as a political issue that is can they use it in a way that would help them in the election or use it against their opponent. And you notice last night that both vice presidential candidates were reluctant to deal with it in any detail because it is a flammable issue and they can lose votes more than they can gain votes. That doesn't mean that they don't have well thought out positions and beliefs on it. But they're not prepared to discuss it from an ethical or constitutional position in a debate. You know that makes me think about politicians and how we view them in today's society and we've kind of touched on that. I'm curious how many of y 'all would aspire to hold political office? In the of you? Some would. Okay. How many of you think your parents would think that was a great thing for you to do? A few of them.

Do you think when did that change or has it changed? Has politics always had this sort of negative stigma that it has now? I don't. I mean it's always had some negative stigma but I think the evidence is pretty clear indicators such as trust in government, confidence in politicians and political institutions which translate then into political participation. All have been steadily declining almost in a straight linear line since the period we're talking about here the early 60s. We've had what a little bit of an upturn in presidential voting in 1992 was the first time that the blip was up. We can probably debate about why that is but I think most of us feel that the increasing cynicism and the sense that what politicians do is not really directly connected to our interests. We have to have contributed to that decline in political participation. Tell me, tell me why you don't. How many of you raise

your hands again? How many of you would go into politics? I saw some. We like his tie. We have to go talk to this person. Tell me why you'd go into politics. Let me hear why you're not cynical. My name is Adam Jones, I believe a political office should be held to change the nation or the country for the better or not for the worse. A politician or one that holds office would be able to look around his community and where he comes from such as the city and feel that he comes from like a representative would should go back to his district and say how do you feel about this bill before voting on it except when it comes up on the House floor, immediate land they vote on it. I believe they should change it for the better. I guess all of us would agree that it's important that they can change things that directly affect your life. Does it scare you that so many of us don't want to go into it now?

Do you think that's going to have serious repercussions? Because we want the best people, right? We don't. Okay, let's think about that. We've actually got a caller on the line. Her name is Nicole. Are you from Goldberg and Nicole? Have I got that right? Yes. Oh good. Go ahead with your question or come in. I have a comment about the campaigns, the recent campaign between Dole and Clinton. Now, I know I've seen so many campaigns in my life, but this one takes the cake because I don't, you know, don't really bother that much about the whole thing because it becomes too commercial and too daily about that stuff, about Medicare and the homelessness and all that stuff. And plus millions of superstars and motion picture, a movie star pay their heart or millions to us. Nicole, are you going to vote? Well, I may not know. Oh, no. But do you think that whoever is

elected is going to have a direct impact on your life, the policies? Well, I don't pay so much attention because, you know, things have been messed up in the last couple of years. Well, thank you. I appreciate your calling very much. Well, Nicole, I don't know. I mean, politics and pinches on your life all the time. From the moment you get up in the morning, to the moment you go to bed and after. I mean, decisions about whether there'll be cable television, which channels will be in your area. Everything you think of is dealt with by politics. And I would say that that politics is a noble calling and one that more of you should be interested in going into. I don't think the paradox is that the quality of politicians in this country now is probably higher than it's been in many years. And what we have here is a sort of lack of historical memory of what things are. There's less

corruption in general and I think more concern for the public interest, although that's often a term of great dispute what it is. And also, I'm not sure I would agree that participation has gone down. Depends what you mean by participation. Extraordinary memberships and interest groups, people out displaying their views on abortion or pro -choice or pro -life and a whole host of issues. Even though they may be cynical and may think the politics doesn't represent them very well. I think there's a lot more participation depending how we define it than is normally conceived. That's a good point if I could also make a point that I try to with my college students who are very often just a little bit older than you because I teach introduction to American government to a lot of freshmen. So they're probably 18 years old, they're probably going to vote for the first time this fall. And I know we're talking about presidential debates here and we tend to focus on presidential elections and I was thinking of that too in terms of voting

participation. But one of the paradoxes too is that very often what matters most in our lives are not presidential elections in terms of policies that affect you and me directly. But very often those races in your municipality, in your town, in your county, you have school boards, you have county commissioners, you have city councils. And here's where the irony again, I guess David, in terms of participation, at least in the voting for those offices, which often make decisions that affect each of us individually much more than presidents do in presidential elections do sometimes. Our turnout in those elections is often abysmal. I think Raleigh recently had 18 % of the eligible electorate turnout in their city council and mayoral elections. Please think about that as you're thinking about politics too because if the presidential race is the Super Bowl, sometimes like the Super Bowl, it's not the most interesting nor the game with the most impact in town. It's all of those games that lead up to it and some of the less visible

political arenas in which elections and participation take place like interest groups that you can be involved with and so on. Are much more important and significant to your lives than some of the bigger games we watch. Is that list probably should include statewide races as well for members of the general assembly and governor and lieutenant governor and the other offices? You can watch on UNCTV. Which you can and I am struck by the difference between the national political races for president and vice president. These are four men who are eager to appear jointly and to explain their views and defend them and be seen by millions of people, whereas in the US Senate contest in North Carolina, only one of the candidates wants to do that. The United States Senator Jesse Hems, who if he wins this time, I think will have been in public or in Senate office longer than any other North Carolinian, does not see the value in participating either in a debate or

public joint appearance with his opponent. And I think we're being robbed of a chance to learn more about his views. We've got another question. This is Gina and Raleigh. Go ahead. How do you think technology will change campaigns in future elections? Question. I guess alluding to maybe the whether we can vote from home with interactive television. They voted by mail too. I guess which is new to us as well. You think we'll be voting on the computer soon? Well, I always like to raise the question, do you want to increase participation just for the sake of having bigger numbers or do you want to increase the quality of participation? I think we could come up with a lot of ways to increase the number of people who vote using that just for simplicity sake one type of participation. A challenging question though is, is that really what we're after? More people voting? Or are you after more people with better

information voting? To me the quality of the participation at least needs to be considered in the issue not just simply whether or not you can get more people to vote or more people to participate. Well, I think we're already seeing an impact until fairly recently you could not register to vote by mail in North Carolina. That's not electronic technology but that is a huge innovation because we resisted it for so long. And after the motor voter acts were passed nationally and there was a state version as well, voter registration has really risen. We're seeing more and more people voting by mail because there are fewer obstacles to voting by absentee ballot right now. I don't mean by mail excuse me by absentee ballot which you can use it used to be much harder much harder to do. Both of the major political parties have we have home pages now.

How many have you been to their home page? Anybody here? Or many of the candidates themselves. You may have looked up to see what they what they stand for and all about their background. The state elections board has a home page where you can learn lots about voter registration in each of the counties. They are computerized voting systems going in so we're moving in that direction. I think it'll be a long time before we vote by computer from home but that is the direction in which we have started to head. And by the way if anybody wants to register to vote tomorrow's the day the deadline to do it. Fascinating question. Fascinating question. Very difficult to answer. On the one hand what technology provides is information in ways that was never accessible before. I have had great trouble finding out how people in the North Carolina Senate and House vote or what legislation is introduced or what changes are made with technology that should be possible if they want to provide us with that information. That's crucial to know how these people vote

or to know what the legislation is how it's introduced. So I see lots of benefits from this for people who are interested. On the other hand of course what the new technology provides is the opportunity to be divisive, to go to groups. I mean just as there may be groups on the net who are for the environment you also have Nazi groups on the environment. There's a great possibility here for a demagoguery for divisiveness so it's on the one hand on the other hand. But overall I mean I think it's inevitable and important. And thanks for the question. Speaking of Nazis on the environment. We have a question. Go ahead. He's going to give you a mic. My name is Devin Gaskell from Chapel Hill High School and then in relation to this issue about participation. There's always been a big debate about voter participation in age group of 18 to 24. So that'd be our age group. And I was wondering what your thoughts were in relation to those closing statements that he expressed directly to our age group and then his home page if you think that may have affected voter turnout or the turnout of the

election. Well it's true you are one of the 18 to 24 year olds or one of the worst cohorts in age in terms of percentage of participation. On the other hand, I guess we're doing the on the one hand on the other hand, it's understandable why younger people have less vested interest in the political system. Many times they're still they're not paying taxes yet. They don't feel that the issues that are being discussed are ones that are of paramount importance for them. There are a lot of things going on in your life at that age that are reason for kids young people to be concerned about that distract them from things political. Now that's not an argument that that's good. But the fact of the matter is 18 to 24 year olds have the lowest turnout of eligible voters of the age group. No, I mean no, no, no, no, they don't. Yeah, they do, yeah, but they shouldn't. Well, I'm not saying they shouldn't. You

better always your hands. I'll come over here if you mic and ask you why. My name is Athena Mashin. I'm from Chapel High School and I was wondering if you also noticed that well last night in the vice presidential debate that Kim was kind of talking around the issues and not really addressing what he was really what he really felt, especially about abortion. Whereas Al Gore was much more targeting the issues and letting the public know exactly what he felt. I mean, let's ask them how many of you felt like Kim sort of did you think it was about issues. Did you feel like no, did you feel like they were they discussed issues. Jennifer West from Triton. No, they kept on going back and forth back that one would say something about something and the other one would say something about the same topic. And then before the commentator or the moderator could ask them another question, Blair of PBS. They just kept on back and forth. Was it better at worsening or what do you think? 18 to

24 to get out and vote. They go to schools. Schools of funded schools have school boards. The quality of their education. In fact, there was a lot about education in these debates and charter schools and all that stuff. Yeah, sure. I mean, it's as relevant politics is as relevant to their lives as to anyone's and their make and voting is power, participation is power. And if they don't do it, you give it up. Right? So that's so. I mean, there are all sorts of reasons why people don't engage in politics, but they should. And they should overcome the reasons. Now, if I can just address this one. I mean, it's a wonderful question. The problem for a politician is what do you do when you get a question that identifies something that you're going to lose on? And the Republicans, the Republican platform espouses a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. That is not popular in this country, no matter how you read the

polls. And certainly won't extend the Republican constituency to the particularly to women, Republican women, they're called soccer mums, right? Suburban Republican women who are soccer moms, I think what do I call them? Suburban moms? No, no, no. It's like soccer moms, right? I mean, so what camp had wanted to do on that? It was finesse it and sort of, well, yes, there's abortion right now and now talk about something else. And you notice, when you watch carefully, that Gore came back to it and said, we are pro -choice, and I believe in a woman's right to choose. The abortion is not a good issue for Republicans, and that's why one of the reasons, though, said I didn't read the platform, so I can put it somewhere else. And that's, I mean, there are equivalent issues for Democrats, and one of the failures of the Republicans in the debates has been that they haven't nailed the Democrats on comparable issues, ones that are embarrassing to Clinton or embarrassing to dole. You understand that? We've got another question.

Hi, I'm Laura Frazier from Chapel Hill, and back to the voter turnout question. I was wondering, one of the big issues for the 18 to 24 crowd would be the deficit, because it's going to affect our age group quite a bit, if it's not dealt with, and it seems to me that neither of the parties is really has an economic plan that is going to try and reduce the deficit, and I was wondering if that maybe influenced the voter turnout in the 18 to 24 age group. It probably could. I'm more of the mind that they're probably a host of things, and let me make it clear, I don't think any of them are good excuses. They tend to be excuses, but they're probably a host of things going on there that tends to reduce the turnout among that age group. But I would echo what David said. I mean, the deficit, I think, is a classic example. I think you have the 18 to 24 year olds, future generations have everything to be concerned about in terms of what our

generation and others are doing that will affect the future. The problem with the deficit is an issue, though, is that it's one of those things where everybody's against the deficit, but then you start asking people, okay, how do you want to deal with it, how do you want to eliminate it? Most people aren't for more taxes, just in principle. They might be, if it's for certain things, then what are you going to cut? And when you get into those specifics, you wind up, I think back in the point, David was making, there's too much there for the candidates to lose, not enough for them to win, so they wind up finessing it. And the discussion you hear about the deficit from the Clinton administration now is it's what half of what it was when they took office. The trend is down. They're certainly going to make the most of that. Does that say that the trend will stay down when the economy slows down? That's much less certain. The Republicans, I think, have had a lot of difficulty than making the deficit an issue because what comes back and what are you talking about? It's half of what it was when we took office. The trend is down. What would you have us do? Again, you wind

up with a lot of, there's still a lot of, I think, as you're alluding to vague language about what the plan is for the future, but I think that's why it hasn't been more of an issue. As we get towards the end of the show, I want to ask you all something. How many of you think we're going to have a female or a non -white president in your lifetime? Or both. Or both. Exactly. You do. Oh, that's good. You're not raising your hand. Oh, you are raising your hand. You're their lifetime. In my lifetime, one of the fascinating things about polling, if you look at polls, this is astonishing, polls done in the 30s, where over 70 or around 80 % of the people polled say they would not vote for an African -American as president, compared to more recent polls where that figure is infinitesimal, I mean, very small. A major change in public attitudes on this issue.

In fact, I think it's entirely possible that we could have had a minority as vice president this year, if Powell had chosen to run hard and accept that spot. Although I have to say, he'd have that same problem we were talking about here. If you think Jack Kemp and Bob Dole have problems deciding who's on the same page, that would have been a real interesting ticket. How many of you I would like for a female president? I'm just curious. I'm looking at the men. I think that would be a great improvement. Get cut to the front row right here. Female president would be a great improvement. Got anybody in mind? Some of my friends. We might have somebody from this audience, but I'm always curious about that. That's great. The issue, though, to me, always seems to be asking that in the hypothetical. It's more interesting to look at who are we providing the framework for the opportunities for to really be a credible, viable candidate? I think that's the issue. I don't think what David was saying,

too. I don't think the gender and race issues in and of themselves are the big ones anymore. It's who's going to be out there with the type of experience with the opportunities at the right time and the right place to make that run? But there was a very interesting study of Ferraro looking at women's attitudes toward Ferraro. Those who thought it's entirely inappropriate for a woman to be president and those who said right on Gung Ho. And the difference among women was around the age of 50. Women under 50 saying fine, terrific. No problem. Women over 50. Not all of them, obviously, but more women over 50 saying, wait a minute. It's not right for a woman to be president. It's not an office of women should hold. They're not qualified for it and so on. But that might be changing now. Oh, time, time. The magazine this week has that. Has that, as they say, in the most wanted women in America right now are career women who are going to decide this election. You know, that's what candidates are fighting. There are many, maybe, some in this room today that think

that Liddy Dole might be the stronger of the two doles heading up the ticket. Better campaigner. And then too bad we didn't have the first lady president candidates debate. That would have been interesting. Or about out of time. What a great idea. That's great idea. I probably heard it some way. You'll see it on P .B. You'll see it in the U .N. TV. You'll see it on P .B. You'll see it in the U .N. TV. You'll see it on P .B. You'll see it in the U .N. TV. But if you all want to briefly just talk to us. I think the main thing that came out of today is the importance of voting. And if you all just want to touch on that as we close to these folks as well as other students and home viewers, I think that'd be terrific. Do you want to start right? I'll put a little bit of a different spin on it. Absolutely. Voting is essential. But all kinds of political participation are essential too. It all comes down to knowing what your views are, informing yourself as best you can, and then acting on those views. Views that are not acted on have no chance of influencing the process. So I think voting is the most obvious one of those,

but there are a lot of other ways to do it. And then in terms of the topic here today, just saying debates are one source of information. But as we talked about with the technology question, you all are growing up in a time where there's going to be information all over the place. And access to that information will not be a problem. Inform yourselves. Learn what's going on. Be an informed participant in the system. And there will be less opportunity or less likelihood that you will be a victim of some of that kind of campaign advertising and the use of information to deceive and manipulate your views. David? Oh, I think you should go to the polls when you can vote. Go to the polls, but not necessarily vote for everybody. I mean, a considered non -vote is important. And if you think that Clinton is not, if you oppose his vote, his decision to sign the welfare bill, for example, and you're perfectly welcome not to vote for him and make it clear that that's, I mean, notify them. That's why you didn't. But there's a lot of, a lot of other contests on the

ballot. And so what I would urge is an informed and understanding decision to vote or not to vote and to vote for particular candidates. And finally to you, Mr. Smith. Well, I make my living criticizing politicians sometimes. And structuring voting. And in fact, I spent a lot of my time in two years of my life when I edited a magazine on public policy researching why people don't vote and trying to come up with solutions that would help them help them vote. And I've come to the conclusion that it's not enough for all of us simply to vote. We need everybody to vote, but we also need everybody to be informed in their representatives know what they think. So that representatives know what to do. Thank you. On that, let me say our closing quote from Mary K. Corp. Actually, it's from Thomas Jefferson. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves, which sort of sums up everything we've said. Thank you, and we'll see you next time on High School

Assembly. This captioning of this program on UNC -TV is made possible in part by a grant from the Janner Foundation. Thank

you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.