When Their Power Failed

With no strong issues really gripping the public, with a great deal of apathy hanging over the voters, the '76 presidential contest has become mostly a test of personality and character. Just which man--Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter--has the temper, courage, determination and cool to lead the nation? The answer was supposed to be forthcoming in the much-anticipated first presidential debate of 1976. It turned out to be an underwhelming event, the debate in which the power failed and in which neither man gained a decisive edge. The situation after the 90-minute confrontation--interrupted by a 27-minute audio blowout that was a testament to the fallibilities of television --was much the same as before. Carter was out front but slipping; Ford was coming up from behind, and the election had suddenly turned into a close race.

Carter badly needs to be born again, this time politically. He has been off on a gaffe-a-week streak, and he can scarcely afford another week like the past two. His remarks on sex in an ill-advised interview with Playboy (see story page 33), his gratuitous insult in listing Lyndon Johnson along with Richard Nixon as a President who had "lied" to the American people, the distortion of his confused and confusing remarks on tax policy--all these and more have hurt him. He has also been damaged by some disarray in his campaign organization and disputes between his Atlanta headquarters and the Democratic old pros in Washington, as well as between his local officials and his campaign chiefs in some states (most of whom had been brought in from other states to stand above local rivalries). Moreover, Carter may be hurt because in a number of contests for Senator or Governor, Republicans have fielded strong candidates or Democrats have fielded weak ones. This is the case in California, Illinois, Rhode Island, Indiana and Missouri.

In sum, Carter is still ahead, but his base of "sure" states has been declining. On the other hand, Ford could just as easily lose his recent gains. In a year of voter indecision and general indifference, quick and sharp fluctuations in sentiment are more likely than not.

After all of the buildup and suspense, the televised clash in the pressure-pot atmosphere of Philadelphia's Walnut Street Theater failed to crystallize voter opinion. Each man pointedly assailed the other at times. But neither seemed eager for--and the non-debate format prevented--a direct and personal showdown. The language occasionally was tough, yet both candidates seemed wary of breaking any new ground. Perhaps having overstudied the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates and apparently intent on showing how knowledgeable they were, both candidates threw out briefing-book statistics in baffling profusion. But, unlike John Kennedy, they rarely marshaled the numbers to establish a more general point. The questioning from the panel of reporters concentrated heavily on taxes, budget balancing and economic policy--vital but dry topics.

Yet the trouble was not so much that the candidates used facts and figures, but that they used too many for quick understanding and yet not enough for really thorough exposition. Besides, they tended to talk past each other, with the arguments only rarely meshing.

Millions of viewers failed to hear out the candidates. The initial Nielsen survey of viewers in the New York City area showed that 73% of households had their TV sets turned on at the beginning of the debate (although a small percentage of these were watching a baseball or hockey game on local channels); this fell to 65.8% after one hour and to 54.2% in the middle of the audio breakdown. The 27-minute sound cutoff, caused by failure in one of ABC's audio amplifiers in a trailer outside the theater, was acutely embarrassing to the network. It was even more awkward for the candidates.

Carter was just launching into a denunciation of intrusions into the privacy of U.S. citizens by the CIA and FBI during the Republican administrations when all networks lost their pooled sound, provided by ABC. At the time, an enlivened Carter was scoring against a somewhat fading Ford. Incredibly, no one invited the debaters to leave their statuesque positions and await the resumption in comfort. Each avoided looking at the other. Breaking the stand-up standoff first, Carter after twelve minutes sat down on his tall stool behind his podium and folded his arms across his chest. This brought shouts of "Yay!" from the 500 balcony observers. When both men, after quickly glancing at each other, wiped their brows with handkerchiefs, the audience applauded. Ford remained standing until the sound resumed.

When the candidates finally had a chance to summarize their cases, Carter's impressive windup raised an intriguing question: What if each man had been offered a chance to open the debate with a similar thematic appeal, as Kennedy had done so effectively in 1960? Carter's sum-up was a honed version of his successful basic campaign pitch. "It's a time to draw ourselves together... with mutual respect for a change, cooperating for a change, in the open for a change. So the people can understand their own Government ... I don't claim to know all the answers. But I've got confidence in my country. Our economic strength is still there. Our system of government--in spite of Viet Nam, Cambodia, CIA, Watergate--is still the best system of government on earth."

Ford ended his summary in more prosaic terms, with a political barb: "A President should never promise more than he can deliver and a President should always deliver everything that he's promised. A President can't be all things to all people. A President should be the same thing to all people ... I think the real issue in this campaign, and that which you must decide on Nov. 2, is whether you should vote for his promises or my performance in two years in the White House."

By that time, unfortunately, the speakers had lost a chunk of their audience. Few viewers who had sat through the first 82 minutes could claim that they had gained refreshing new insights into economic problems and policies. Said Harvard's Otto Eckstein, a liberal member of TIME'S Board of Economists: "I've got to teach freshman economics on Monday and I'd be hard put to find something useful in the debate to teach them. The candidates just completely missed a grand educational opportunity." Yale's Robert Triffin, another member of TIME'S Board, found the debate "desperately dull and desperately uninfor-mative." A top industrial economist was even harsher: "Neither of them would have passed Economics." Perhaps because they were intent on winning political points, both men seemed shallower on the economic issues than they have in past statements.

Other academicians and politicians interviewed by TIME correspondents generally saw no clear winner. "I wouldn't think either man was damaged," said Louis Koenig, professor of government at New York University. Historian Theodore Kovaleff of Barnard College disagreed: "Carter went in a clear leader and he came out looking terribly poor." Asked who won, Northwestern University Political Scientist Louis Masotti replied with a derisive comment on the audio breakdown, "The Luddites," a reference to the early 19th century workers who smashed machines in protest against industrialization. Added Masotti: "Carter came across as a Southern Baptist preacher, and Ford was reciting high school platitudes. I may not go to the polls in November. I just can't get up for this." Douglas Fraser, director of the United Auto Workers' political arm, predictably thought Carter came off all right, but no better: "He didn't have to win. He just had to be credible and I think he showed that."

The most enthusiasm expressed for Carter's performance came from the Democratic majority leader of the House of Representatives, Massachusetts' Thomas ("Tip") O'Neill: "I thought Carter creamed him." Independent Candidate Eugene McCarthy, who was not allowed to participate in the debate, gave it a typically sardonic review. It was, he said, "like a bad baseball game where after seven innings everybody wants to go home." Observed George Reedy, who was Lyndon Johnson's press secretary: "The President was probably helped because he gave an appearance of competence. Carter was probably helped because he gave an appearance of compassion. But I don't think this changes the equation one bit."

In college dorms where students congregated to watch the confrontation, turnouts were generally small and enthusiasm was minimal. Carter held a clear advantage with the young voters. Many became bored long before the 90 minutes had expired, and left. The sentiment of Leslie Langnau, a junior at Michigan State, was widely shared: "I wish I had a prepared sheet of facts. Carter would say one thing and Ford would say another. They can't both be right." At the University of California at Berkeley, Lester Antman, 19, had no difficulty picking a winner. His choice: Panelist Elizabeth Drew. Many students thought they could have done better than either man. Declared University of Virginia Sophomore David Barol: "Ford's attack on Congress was a strong point. I can't understand why Carter didn't point out Ford had been in Congress 25 years and done nothing to try to reform it." Perhaps as good an analysis as any was embodied in the "counterklutzical theory" formulated by TIME'S West Coast bureau chief, Jess Cook, who thought Ford may have won because so little was expected of him. Wrote Cook of Ford's "strategy":

"First you walk into your chopper door. Then you fall down the ramp of Air Force One. Before you even take office you arrange for the last Democratic President to suggest your inability to chew gum and do much of anything else. Then, when your opponent is all set up, you show up for a campaign debate, leaving your college football helmet at home, and play 90 minutes of What's My Line? without falling on your fanny. Viewers are impressed. You aren't an utter boob after all."

Who did win? The figures were hardly decisive, but an early nationwide sampling of opinion gave a slight edge to Ford. Telephoning 1,065 voters, the Associated Press found 34.4% thought he had won, 31.8% considered Carter the winner and 33.8% either figured it a tie or had no opinion. (Statistically, this sample carries a possible error of 2.9%.) A Louis Harris/ABC News poll taken the day after the debate also showed that viewers, by a narrow margin, thought Ford had won. Also, according to Harris, Carter had led Ford 52%-39% before the debate, but slipped to a 50%-41% margin afterward.

It was almost as though the candidates had heard and heeded the advice of Anthropologist Margaret Mead. She had phoned Carter Adman Gerald Rafshoon a few days before the debate to urge: "Style over substance. Style over substance." Carter was at first unsteady and stumbled over words. He wove sentences difficult to follow in both their complexity and delivery. He was choppy, his voice unsteady. But as he warmed to his argument, he relaxed, smiled at his opponent's exaggerations and showed flashes of spontaneity and an eloquence exceeding Ford's. The President was more consistent, somewhat complex--and also more predictable.

He gripped the podium tightly, his features uncustomarily taut. He was forceful and self-assured. Yet his knowledge of the specifics of government did not seem markedly superior to Carter's. Carter would seem to have greater potential but be a greater risk. Ford would seem to be safer but less exciting.

Both candidates occasionally seemed to ignore the context of the questions, veering sharply away from the subject to emphasize issues of their own choosing. But both scored some solid debating points. While Carter criticized Ford's record of 56 vetoes in his two years in the White House as an example of "government by stalemate," the President claimed that F.D.R. had averaged 55 vetoes a year, Harry Truman 38 and Carter himself, as Governor of Georgia, between 35 and 40. (All such averages, of course, fail to gauge the significance of the measures vetoed.)

When Carter proudly cited his reorganization of the Georgia government, Ford fired back with Census Bureau statistics showing that in four years under Carter, Georgia's government increased spending by 50%, the number of state employees by 25% and bonded indebtedness by more than 20% (though Carter's aides argue that these figures used alone are misleading). Ford also managed to turn around a reporter's question about how he could so harshly assail the Democratic Congress and yet work with it if elected. "I think the American people want a Republican President to check on any excesses that come out of the next Congress," Ford declared.

Carter hit high points of his own. He insisted that "Mr. Ford" had not, "except for avoiding another Watergate, accomplished one single major program for this country." (With two exceptions, the challenger avoided calling him "President Ford.") Carter also observed that" Mr. Ford quite often puts forward a program just as a public relations stunt, and never tries to put it through the Congress by working with the Congress."

Carter broke into his first big smile when Ford estimated the cost of new programs in the Democratic platform at up to $200 billion but also supported some modest "quality of life programs" of his own. Said Carter: "Well, Mr. Ford takes the same attitude that the Republicans always take. In the last three months before an election, they're always for the programs that they always fight the other 3 1/2 years."

Both candidates committed some gaffes. Carter placed the Great Depression in "the 1940s," once slipped into referring to "Mr. Nixon" when he meant and corrected himself to say, "Mr. Ford." More substantively, Carter was wrong in claiming that there are fewer people employed in nonfarm private jobs than when Ford took office; there has been an increase of some 1.8 million. Carter also erred in claiming, "We've got the highest inflation we've had in 25 years right now." The inflation rate was higher earlier in Ford's presidency, in 1974. Trying to correct the use of "now," Carter added confusingly: "Except in this Administration."

Ford, on the other hand, fell into an odd statement in his summation, claiming that "our children have been the victims of mass education," without ever explaining why one of the nation's most cherished educational goals is wrong or what he proposed to do about it. Ford claimed far too much credit for a $28 billion tax reduction proposed for this year: it was largely an extension of last year's cuts--which, in turn, had reached their level only at the insistence of the Congress. Indeed, at another point, Ford replied to Carter's complaints about the tax structure with the claim that all the tax bills have been written by the Democratic Congress.

Ford was also misleading in deriding Carter's claim that, if the economy and employment grow as rapidly as he anticipates, by fiscal 1981 there could be a $60 billion surplus in federal revenues. Ford's own economic advisers have projected an even greater possible fiscal gain: $75.5 billion. Nor was Ford accurate in claiming that current Georgia Governor George Busbee had found the state's Medicaid program "a shambles" on following Carter into office. The term does not appear in the Senate Finance subcommittee testimony Ford had cited. What Busbee had done, in fact, was to assail the Federal Government's program and regulations on Medicaid as "the most complex, confused, duplicative and wasteful system ever conceived by man."

The most dubious shot of the debate was Ford's assertion that "Mr. Carter wants to increase taxes for roughly half of the taxpayers of this country." Carter was correct in pointing out that this assumption was based on an error in an Associated Press report of an interview with him, and that the White House had long ago been informed of the error. In the interview, Carter had said that he intended to "shift a substantial increase " [in taxes] toward those who have the higher incomes and reduce the income [tax] on the lower-income and middle-income taxpayers." Quite innocently, A.P. had dropped the words "and middle-income" from Carter's statement. When Carter was asked by A.P. what he meant by "higher incomes," he loosely cited the mean or median level of income, and anything above that would be higher and anything below would be lower." Ford has repeatedly pounced on that to insist that Carter means to increase taxes on anyone making more than $14,000--even though Carter specifically had excluded "middle-income taxpayers" from such increases. Still, Carter is open to the suspicion that he did not know what the "median income" means.

Apart from all the confusion over statistics and a failure to come to grips with more precise explanations of how they would deal with the difficult choices in managing the complex economy, both candidates clearly staked out their main areas of emphasis. They are traditionally those of the two parties. Ford stressed restraint in federal spending, resulting in tax reductions and stimulation of the private sector of the economy. Carter placed greater emphasis on putting more people to work by stimulating the economy to a greater degree than would Ford; he charged that Ford failed to appreciate that unemployment is not merely statistics, but "touches human beings."

When it was over, both candidates received a standing ovation from the audience of reporters and League of Women Voters guests. Rosalynn Carter rushed up to kiss her husband. Ford got congratulations from Press Secretary Ron Nessen, later took a call from Betty Ford, who remained in Washington.

Clearly, the Ford camp was more jubilant. "Congratulations, Mr. President, you knocked him out of the ballpark," Presidential Aide Michael Duval told Ford. Replied the President: "I loved every minute of it." He then went off to a Philadelphia rally for his Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey committees and proclaimed: "We did all right ... When we get to the next one, we'll do even better." Then he shouted: 'The American people want four more years of Ford!"

Carter was more subdued. His campaign manager, Hamilton Jordan, had told a colleague before the face-off: "If we don't win that debate, or at least hold our own, we're all through." Carter held his own, but he made no claims of victory. Later he relaxed enough to get off a crack to campaign volunteers at a Philadelphia party: "Unaccustomed as I am to speaking with a sound system that works ..." Next day he conceded: "I think I was a little too reticent in being aggressive against the President." In the next debate, he vowed, "I'll pick up where I left off. I'll be aggressive." Somewhat obliquely, Carter conceded that the debate had come at a fortunate time, diverting attention from some of his recent campaign problems.

Ford was not entirely clear of potential hazards either. He seems to be marginally involved in two investigations. The SEC is looking into U.S. Steel's entertaining of legislators, possibly including Ford when he was a Congressman; meanwhile, the special prosecutor's office in Washington is examining Republican Party records in Ford's home county in Michigan and the political contributions of the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, a union that has long been a big contributor to his campaigns. Whether either of these will turn out to be a real campaign problem remains uncertain, but the point is that there is so much volatility in the election that almost any unpredictable event could swing it--perhaps even the next debate.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.