Coming
To The Table: Why The Candidates Are Easier To Take Sitting Down
by
RON ELVING , October 11, 2011
We've
all heard a lot about how the American family sits around the kitchen table,
talking about making ends meet.
It
doesn't matter that most families don't actually do that. It's an image as
common to campaign rhetoric as the family farm. It's a Norman Rockwell
painting, an icon of deep tribal memory.
We've
also all heard a lot about how a leader gets all parties to come to
the table. And about how important it is that everything be on the
table. And how you can't leave anything on the table.
The
table is a potent figure of speech,
like the proverbial level playing field everyone is
always trying to create.
But
the table can be more than a meaningful metaphor. It is also a physical thing
that has actual effects. When you get people to sit down at a literal table,
they look different and they act differently. In fact, they look and act
better.
Consider
the eight Republican candidates for president who met at Dartmouth College in
Hanover, N.H., Tuesday night for another debate in their long-running series.
Unlike the previous half-dozen rounds, this one took place around a
table. And by sitting everyone down, the sponsors managed to elevate the
discussion.
The
candidates had plenty of opportunity to badger and beard each other, but they
did so in a more civil and
substantive manner than in any debate to date. Their proximity to each
other made bombast more difficult, or at least more obvious when it occurred.
In
the previous debates, the candidates waited behind their lecterns like so many
trained seals eager to balance the ball on their snouts. The would-be
presidents have stood as in a police lineup, confronted by a battery of
inquisitors firing questions so adversarial that audience and candidates alike
often objected out loud.
But
not in Hanover, where the table setting clearly altered the dynamic. All
sat on a single plane, sharing in a discussion that at least visually included
everyone. That eliminated the sense of candidates as prisoners in
the dock and journalists as prosecutors hurling accusations.
Charlie
Rose of PBS, with his easy-going dishevelment and roundabout style, seemed a
half-step behind the proceedings as moderator. But no matter. The strength of
the evening was in the strong presence of Karen Tumulty from The
Washington Post and Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg News, who went at the
candidates with unblinking and undaunted inquiries.
Most
of the candidates rose to the challenge. Mitt Romney was once again well
prepared for the attacks he would face, hitting the facts of his case with
force and yet remembering to project concern and empathy. Rick Perry, somewhat
lost during stretches of the debate, got chances to reiterate his Texas theme,
stressing that all would be well if the energy industry were left alone to
create jobs. Herman Cain took a hammering from just about everyone on his 9-9-9
tax overhaul, but defended himself with humor and forceful simplicity.
Yet
everyone at the table appeared to be part of the discussion, even when they
were not. No one was forced to stand alone for long segments of the evening,
wondering why he or she was even onstage.
Also
absent was the sense of an audience just beyond the lights lusting for blood.
Unlike earlier debates where audience members cheered the number of inmates
executed in Texas and booed a gay member of the U.S. armed forces in Iraq, the
audience here erupted only occasionally in applause. There was no whooping and
shouting. Clearly the organizers had worked to create a less distracting
atmosphere, but the rubric of the table helped make that possible.
In
recent years, both parties have experimented with the sit-down format in both
primaries and general election debates. And both parties should consider the
enormous contribution the format makes to the
quality of the discussion.
