The Cortex Chronicles (2a)—Presidential Debate Zingers

One year ago on Round and Square (3 October 2011)—Styling Culture: Page Numbers

Click here for the introduction to the Round and Square series "The Cortex Chronicles"

[a] Ballot RF

For the other segment of this two-part mini-series, click below:

Zinger 1               Zinger 2  

The first big presidential debate of the 2012 election will take place tonight. The incumbent, Barack Obama, will face the challenger, Mitt Romney. American presidential debates have a mythology (most of this surrounds Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, and they were actually senatorial) and a "modern" history. The latter extends for only five decades, from the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, a sixteen-year moratorium, and then one or more debates every election season from 1976 until, well, today. Really...today.

Political junkies remember the debates like Super Bowls. We all remember Carter-Ford II as though it were Super Bowl III (trust me). Almost nothing else compares, and they can recite the way that Bobby Kennedy saw Richard Nixon's haggard appearance in 1960, allowed his heart to leap, smiled, and said that he looked great. Some people think that it was the difference in the election (others point to things like choosing Lyndon Johnson as VP and a few precincts in Chicago). Gerald Ford famously said in 1976 that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet domination. Ronald Reagan said, pretty basically, "there you go again" to James Earl Carter III. Al Gore sighed too much (and lost), John Kerry dominated George W. Bush (and lost). No one remembers much about the 2008 presidential debates.

[b] Vote RF

That's because everyone was thinking (against the grain) about the vice-presidential debates that year. These have their own increasingly storied past, even though they feel a little bit like the third-place game in the World Cup. George H.W. Bush got into a little trouble in 1984 for boasting that he kicked Geraldine Ferraro's posterior extremeties. In 1992, Ross Perot's vice-presidential choice, Vice Admiral James Stockdale, stepped in it pretty early with a confusing and sad soliloquy about "...why am I here?."  The 2008 vice-presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden was the most anticipated in history, although almost no one can remember many details that they saw outside of Saturday Night Live. The real vice presidential fireworks would be reserved for 1988, when Lloyd Bentsen told Dan Quayle "I knew Jack Kennedy...and you're no Jack Kennedy." 

Big stuff. I watched them all, with the exception of 1960. Those slipped by me, perhaps due to chronological challenges.

One thing everyone remembers is what one candidates' team today is calling "the zinger." Apparently, the Republican nominee has been practicing zingers since August, and is ready to surprise the president with a wow line that will knock his socks off, stir the audience, and move the polls. Although no one has ever confirmed it, it is very likely that Lloyd Bentsen practiced his JFK line and was prepared to zing Dan Quayle with it in 1988. Quayle (not the most nuanced candidate who has ever run, even though he probably took more negative press about his intellect than he deserved—not everyone can spell potatoe), had been making John F. Kennedy allusions for weeks, and Bentsen's team was ready. They had a zinger ready to go. There is only one difference from the way zingers are popping up in the news today.

Bentsen's team members didn't say they were going to do it. It was a surprise.

There is a lesson here. Take a deep breath, calm yourself, and think. How does a zinger work? Yup. The audience didn't know it was coming. That's how it works. This is so central to the art of delivering zingers that one would think that a crack organization running a major American presidential campaign would hold back the fact that its candidate had been walking up to aides and unloading pre-packaged lines on them in anticipation of a debate many weeks later. Ask any actor or actress. The best lines are well-rehearsed and delivered naturally.

[c] Polling RF

So Lloyd Bentsen's famous diatribe was contrived. It is impossible to convince me otherwise. It was delivered as a surprise, and seemed to be an emotional response out of the blue. This is masterful, and so hard to pull off that it is stunning to me that it worked in 1988. If you watch Dan Quayle, though, it is almost as though he knew his blissful run of JFK references was coming to a close. Take a close look, and then we'll talk about brain chemistry and call it a presidential debate day. 

Bentsen-Quayle 1988 0:34

Bentsen-Quayle 1988 3:39

I cannot help but think about the relationship between emotion and reasoning (or at least thinking twice...or thrice). What does all of this have to do with presidential debates? Well, everything. It is pretty obvious that the "oops" moments (such as GHW Bush "kicking" Geraldine Ferraro) were products of bubbling synapses in the limbic system. The strong and methodical axle-kicking that John Kerry did to George W. Bush in 2004 was almost entirely the product of Kerry's strength—a frontal cortex controlled set of messages that delivered no zingers, but rather four-and-a-half hours of force-field that tightened the race down to the end. 

So what does brain chemistry have to do with it? Clearly, some of the best lines in presidential election history have emerged from emotional reactions. Even William Jefferson Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention contained little in the written version that people have remembered even for the last month. His movement from text to ad-lib, however, provided such things as references to "math" and other points that resonated with listeners (and changed the polls, as some people argue).

[d] Close (look it up) RF

Does that mean that candidates should be emotional and shout out their passions in order to seem genuine? Nope. Let's just say that emotion usually gets you into trouble. Usually. And here is where we're going with this. It's tricky. There needs to be a highly practiced and focused set of statements that, nonetheless, appear to be spontaneous and natural. This is both harder and much easier to do than you might think...even doing them at the same time. How do I know? I get to practice it all the time in the classroom. The difference there is that no one is (usually) attacking me from the other side. In other words, it is tough, but it can be done. 

So what is a zinger, and how do we know it worked? As I mentioned earlier (and I have watched all debates since 1976), we junkies have never entered a debate being told that zingers were coming. I can't wait for tonight. I enjoy zingers. I have a few of my own in my teaching, and I love delivering those lines as though they were the most natural thing in the world (students who have taken my classes: I am referring to the "Zhou king" and the "head Honshu", in particular). They are frontal cortex stuff (well-considered and planned), but are delivered with emotion and a sense of living-in-the-moment—connecting with an audience right there...right then. 

That is in itself promising new territory for brain research and cultural analysis. I'll have more to say about these matters after the debates. Emotion or reason? It's not that simple. 

Drop the "or" and we have a start. 

For the other segment of this two-part mini-series, click below:

Zinger 1               Zinger 2  

[e] Far afield RF