THE PRESIDENCY: More to the Job Than Acting

The bizarre circumstances of this stage-door presidential campaign conspired to make Tuesday's television drama a climactic, winner-take-all event.

It is not only silly, it is dangerous. But the candidates themselves declared it would be vital—and the pollsters, and the journalists. No wonder Americans began to believe the reviews of how they were expected to respond. To hear some tell it, they were planning to pull up around the television set as if it were Oscar night in Hollywood and measure teeth, hair, voices, eyes and shapes, thus resolving months of indecision by observing 90 minutes of two-dimensional posturing.

It could work that way. The so-called debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan may be terribly influential in deciding the final vote, but, in truth, it is of marginal value in providing information for anyone to assess realistically the skills and intelligence needed by a President. Reagan hoped to demonstrate his heft and grasp of the issues, and Carter declared he would show everybody that he could memorize the script and would not have to use cue cards if he faces Brezhnev in another round of negotiations.

In fact, if Reagan believed that in a weekend of cramming for the debate he could add to his presidential dimensions, he is more shallow than now perceived by many. And if Carter really negotiated with Brezhnev or anyone else without prepared position papers on the table in front of him or in the briefcases of his aides, he would be more reckless and naive than even his detractors have imagined.

There is some worth in having a President who is articulate under pressure, well funded with instantly retrievable facts and unawed by the stature of his adversary. But those skills form only a small part of the abilities a President needs to run the nation.

Presidential debates compel both men to gloss over their miscalculations, exaggerate their strengths, try to lure the other one into error, in order to emerge in the eyes of the public at large as a "winner." All of these objectives so coveted in television performances are the opposite of the qualities so vital to Executive deliberation and diplomatic negotiation.

Success in the Oval Office requires that mistakes be acknowledged and corrected, that communication be direct and candid, both internally and with outside adversaries. In this time of penetrating surveillance and instant communication, the old art of bluffing and posturing is often foolish and hazardous. We know each other's capabilities. Thus clear understanding of purposes is essential. It is a basic rule of today's diplomacy that successful negotiations never produce "winners" in the television sense, only satisfied parties on both sides of the table. Threats hurled back and forth are a sign of failed leadership.

The 1976 Ford-Carter encounters are an example of how this electronic drama can obscure meaning and mislead audiences. Carter at first was awed facing a President. But his grasp of facts and his spiritual armor were enough to restore confidence, while Ford bumbled along and made his startling claim that Poland was not under Soviet dominance. In those swift television rounds, Challenger Carter skillfully danced, jabbed and flicked his facts. Ford, burdened with himself and his office, lost the decision.