(already subscribe? log in).

The debate peanut gallery is part of the show

EDITORIAL | Joanna Weiss

THIS STORY APPEARED IN

January 29, 2012|By Joanna Weiss

Spectators applaud as they watch a Republican presidential debate in Charleston,… (Jason Reed/Reuters )

YOU’VE GOT to love Newt Gingrich’s latest tantrum: threatening to boycott any debate that doesn’t let the audience cheer.

His declaration last week was both self-righteous and self-serving, since his principled stand dovetails nicely with his strength: revving up a crowd, overshadowing Mitt Romney’s bland above-the-frayishiness, exploiting a general hatred of the messenger. The cheers Gingrich drew at one CNN debate might well have won him the South Carolina primary. In exit polls, voters said they were drawn to the angry guy.

And then NBC declared, at its own debate last Monday, that the peanut gallery shouldn’t make a sound. By Thursday’s CNN debate, the cheers were back; they sometimes worked in Gingrich’s favor, sometimes not. But was Monday’s debate, with its quiet crowd and largely neutered Newt, actually more useful, or more fair?

The argument against audience noise goes something like this: Debates are meant to enlighten folks at home, help them understand policy differences and make sober, high-minded choices, so the cheers of a partisan crowd are just distractions and distortions. The Commission on Presidential Debates, which oversees the general election forums, has a longstanding ban on audience noise.

But a no-noise rule is, in its way, a curb on political discourse - and an odd one, coming from a company that makes oodles of dough off political ads. Now, corporations can be as loud as they want, but people in a debate hall can’t?

More importantly, a silenced crowd withholds some vital information from the viewers. Yes, politics is about issues and philosophies, but it isn’t solely a business of policy wonkery. If you want to be president, you need to be able to sell yourself. You also need to understand TV.

Television instincts and crowd-rousing skills will only get you so far. Sarah Palin was the logical extension of style over substance, and she wound up where she belonged: on a reality show in Alaska. But style can’t be discounted, or underestimated. President Obama’s messaging troubles have hurt him in several key Washington fights. Progressives’ love for Elizabeth Warren rests partly on one viral video clip, in which she articulates a philosophy of taxation more clearly than the president has done.

And when GOP candidates deify Ronald Reagan, it has less to do with Reagan’s issue portfolio - in many ways, he was far too moderate to satisfy the current field - and more to do with his skill at communicating values in an optimistic way.