FRENCH DEBATES AND AMERICAN DEBATES.

Posted on May 7, 2007 by Philip

FRENCH DEBATES AND AMERICAN DEBATES. Nicholas Sarkozy was elected President of France yesterday. Sarkozy and his opponent Segolene Royal held a debate during the week before the vote. French Presidential debates differ dramatically from American Presidential debates. The French candidates appear face to face without an intermediary and argue. We had the good fortune to be in France in 1981 and saw the televised debate between Mitterand and Giscard d’Estaing. My French wasn’t good enough to follow the debate, but I could tell that the two men had enough time to express their thoughts in complete paragraphs and were able to respond directly to each other’s arguments. American debates are really joint press conferences with no opportunity to develop an argument. I have always thought that American debates take the form they do because of the power of the television networks. The format makes the members of the press appearing on the show almost as important as the candidates.

This entry was posted in Journalism, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to FRENCH DEBATES AND AMERICAN DEBATES.

  1. Nick says:
    May 7, 2007 at 5:47 PM

    Perhaps the American format allows less articulate/charismatic figures win elections. I’m not sure how well that works for the United States from a diplomatic standpoint.

  2. Philip says:
    May 7, 2007 at 7:49 PM

    A good point I hadn’t really thought about. The American Presidency calls for executive talent more than the French or English systems.

  3. Richard Weisfelder says:
    May 7, 2007 at 8:12 PM

    Philip: Explain your point!

  4. Philip says:
    May 7, 2007 at 10:54 PM

    I think the American format does not give a good opportunity to persuade by argument. I think the press gets in the way. I think this problem exists on TV generally. A candidate gets only a sound bite opportunity. For example, it was said that John Edwards strength in the last election was the coherence and persuasiveness of his 30 minute standard speech. I don’t think that he ever had more a couple minutes at a time to speak on national TV. I took Nick’s point to be that the American format may show the ability to make decisions and explain them in summary form. I can see that one might consider that more important in an executive, such as a governor, than the ability to persuade, which may be more of a senator’s skills. I can see the point, but I still would prefer a format that gave the candidates more time to speak.

  5. Nick says:
    May 9, 2007 at 9:35 AM

    Another part of my point was that they do lack the power of persuasion, and reasoning no longer has any relevance, only force of will. And I’m not so sure that’s a good thing. We’re no longer a weak nation that needs a “strong president” historians love so damned much.

    Andrew Jackson was a “strong president” who flouted the Supreme Court, and inexplicably declared war on the national bank.

  6. Richard Weisfelder says:
    May 9, 2007 at 9:50 AM

    Philip: The point you need to explain is the following:

    “The American Presidency calls for executive talent more than the French or English systems.”

  7. Annalisa says:
    May 9, 2007 at 4:50 PM

    Haha, I remember Mr. Burt’s (AP US History teacher) utter bafflement at how Jackson took on the bank. Wasn’t he quoted as saying, “I will kill it!”? He was one of the best teachers we ever had. Mr. Burt, not Andrew Jackson.

  8. Lee says:
    May 9, 2007 at 4:58 PM

    I don’t know, Annalisa. I heard Jackson was a notoriously easy grader.

    (I’m sorry for such a worthless comment, Mr. S)

  9. Philip says:
    May 9, 2007 at 7:29 PM

    Lee, I did laugh out loud at your comment.

  10. Lee says:
    May 9, 2007 at 9:39 PM

    I’m glad it wasn’t a throwaway comment! I should also reassure everyone that easy grading is NOT one of my criteria for being a good teacher.

  11. Pingback: Pater Familias » PRESIDENTS AND PRIME MINISTERS.

  12. Pingback: Pater Familias » NARROW DEBATES.

  13. Pingback: Pater Familias » PRESS INTERVENTION IN THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES.

  14. Pingback: WHY JOURNALISTS SHOULD NOT MODERATE DEBATES. | Pater Familias

  15. Pingback: PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES AS SPORTING EVENTS. | Pater Familias

  16. Pingback: MY IDEAL DEBATE—NO MODERATOR. | Pater Familias

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.