Points for Style and Substance

A panel of experts weighs the debate and its aftermath

To analyze and weigh the performances of the candidates and the impact of Sunday night's debate on the election, TIME called on half a dozen experts from Government, politics and academe. Their comments and conclusions:

HENRY KISSINGER, Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford:

I hope this is the last foreign policy debate of this kind, because it is bound to confuse the American people. I think the President succeeded in conveying the sense of his instincts. I think Mondale's basic message was fairly confused. He wanted to make it clear that he was tough, but he also wanted to appeal to his liberal constituency. What we had from the Mondale side was a lot of facts, a lot of statements that were, internally, madly contradictory. He would not give away the technology of the space defense system, but he wouldn't build it. The MX will draw fire, but why not the Minuteman? To call the arms race madness implies that it was largely in our control to end it.

I think the combination of the format and the stakes made the candidates feel that they must make very simple points on very complicated issues. The real issue here is a philosophical one, and the President summed it up in a phrase, "Should we conduct policy from weakness?" That's too simple a way of putting it, but that is the essential point--whether one can negotiate better by making a series of unilateral moves, like giving up the MX, Bl, Strategic Defense Initiative [Star Wars], or whether one can negotiate better by continuing whatever programs are considered in the national interest until there is some equitable settlement.

There was an element of condescension in Mondale's stressing just a little too much the implication that the President was not in command of the material and was not sharp enough. I think he overdid that, and I think he was wrong. I think that out of this debate Reagan emerges looking somewhat more presidential, and Mondale looks like somebody who has learned a number of speeches, which were presented with reasonable eloquence but which really didn't hang together. Mondale tried to get both to the left and the right of President Reagan and thus provided no reason to change Presidents.

JOHN P. SEARS, Washington lawyer and campaign manager for Ronald Reagan in 1976:

On foreign policy, the question in the mind of the voter is: Who should lead us? Reagan reinstilled himself tonight as that leader. The challenger must present a compelling reason to throw the leader out. Mondale did not do that. He just did not look like the kind of guy you want to send out there in the foreign policy field for us. Presidents have a natural advantage in this type of forum, and Reagan made enough use of that fact to help himself.

People feel they aren't really qualified to judge the technicalities of arms control or foreign policy, so even if they think Mondale could be right, they tend to stay with the man who is in there figuring things out and doing his best day by day. Expectations for Reagan were lower this time, and he benefited from that, as from the fact--which he pointed out--that the country is at peace. At the end, he did not have a concise four-minute speech, but at least there was no bumbling as there was last time. In sum, there was no knockout.

RICHARD M. SCAMMON, political analyst, director of the Elections Research Center and editor of America Votes:

I think they both looked pretty good, and in a sense that is bad for Mondale. Mondale appeared to be his same competent self, but the President looked on his form. If the Democrats counted on this becoming a knockout blow to slap Reagan down to even money, I'm sure that didn't happen. After what was first perceived to be a drop in the polls for Reagan, he's almost bounced all the way back. Since the first debate had in the long run only a limited effect, my guess is that the second one will have less. In the first debate the President had the image of faltering, and image is what counts in these things. By this time everyone knows the candidates' positions, and the candidates have a standard response for every charge. There isn't that kind of golden kazoo or gimmick that is going to solve your problems. Who won the debate isn't what's important. And it wouldn't be as easy to make that judgment this time. The real question is what will be the views of the electorate in two weeks' time? I would be surprised if by then you saw this campaign narrowing to the point where it became a horse race.

JAMES DAVID BARBER, professor of political science, Duke University:

Most startling were the candidates' very different views about what has been happening around the world: it's a question of major assumptions of reality and different conceptions of the presidency. It's incredible that two candidates can assert such marked differences on questions of historical fact. It's as if one were from Venus and one were from Mars. On Lebanon, Mondale's version was that the causes were mistaken U.S. policy, the procedures amounted to presidential bungling, and the effect was to embolden the terrorists. Reagan answered that the causes were mainly Lebanese, there was no lapse in procedures, and the effect has been to heighten security. Arms control, or lack thereof, the Administration attributed to Soviet intransigence and to lack of American strength. Mondale attributed it to the present Administration's lack of interest in pursuing it. Mondale advanced the view that the President ought to know the appropriate information about the major crises, like Lebanon, and that in addition he ought to be on top of chronic issues like arms control. Reagan, by contrast, seemed to advance the view of the President as ultimately responsible in an overall way for policy but not much in the way of details.

HAMILTON JORDAN, White House Chief of Staff under President Carter:

Reagan improved significantly on his poor performance in the first debate, and although Mondale was good, he was not as sharp as he was in the first debate. Mondale finished strong but he did not start strong. I thought Reagan's performance was balanced all the way through. I would give the debate to Mondale on points, but I'm biased. It certainly was not a decisive win for either person. I doubt that the second debate will move a lot of voters. And probably the partisans of both Reagan and Mondale will be satisfied with their performances. I don't think the partisans of either could give either candidate the kind of edge Mondale gained in the first debate. I doubt that this debate will be a significant factor on the dynamics of the campaign in the next weeks. As you look at the lead that Reagan has, you could certainly say that Mondale did not get as much out of this debate politically as he needed. I hope I'm wrong.