Rick Perry Wants You to Think He’s the Gipper

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Your mission tonight: watch Rick Perry’s debate performance and decide if it’s really Reaganesque. Pollster Matt Towery, a former national debate champion, says he’s sure trying to make it look that way:

“Every time someone says something, he cocks his head with a little smile on his face,” Towery said. “Reagan would always move his head to one side and act as if he couldn’t quite believe what the other person was saying. I guarantee that’s what he’s trying to do.”

OK. I’ll keep my eyes open for that. And as long as we’re talking about debates, let’s also explode a myth. Here’s the conclusion of the article:

By now it’s a faded memory, but the first televised presidential debate in 1960, between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, signaled the dawn of a new age of judgment on the part of debate watchers, one that launched a thousand image-consultant careers.

Nixon, sweating under the hot TV lights, his five o’clock shadow visible, seemed nervous and shifty compared with Kennedy, who bore an easy smile and suave demeanor. People remember that Kennedy won the debate. That was true for TV viewers. Radio listeners, immune to Kennedy’s visual appeal, gave the win to the sweaty guy.

This myth was seriously called into question a long time ago. The polling evidence is extremely thin to begin with — basically a single small survey that showed radio audiences with a better opinion of Nixon — and it’s unclear whether even that survey can be trusted. By 1960, TV was so widespread that its audience was fundamentally different from the radio audience, which by then was mostly rural, conservative, Protestant, and — quite likely — predisposed to like Nixon in the first place. Nixon’s sweaty brow and pale demeanor might have hurt him with the TV audience, but the evidence on this score is close to nonexistent.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest