Battle of the blands . . . not a single real punch thrown
Related Articles
WE don't have gladiators or armoured knights any longer.
We don't have Cuchulainn and Ferdia at the ford. But we do still love single combat, and every few years we get it from our leaders and would-be leaders.
To the spectators the prize may seem lower, because the combatants' lives are not at risk.
But as the famous Liverpool manager Bill Shankly said, football is not a matter of life and death, it is more important.
And to politicians, nothing is more important than power.
Last night, one of the contenders fought to hold on to power.
The other had his single chance to attain it.
And the audience was far bigger than any that watched the gladiators or the knights.
Television makes that possible.
But does television determine the outcome of elections?
By common consent, the most famous series of TV debates did determine the result of the American presidential election way back in 1960, when vice-president Richard Nixon confronted Senator John F Kennedy.
Nixon had a better grasp of the issues, but appearance counts for more on television.
He looked awful: shifty, dishonest, sweaty, unshaven. Kennedy seemed fresh, clean, above all young - much younger than his 43 years.
If he lost the argument he won the debate and the election. How does this translate into the Irish scene?
More accurately than one might think, for all the difference between Irish and US politics.
Television is better at conveying impressions than information.
Viewers do not want to hear arguments about figures which they do not understand and forget as soon as given.
They want a spectacle.
In one such debate in Ireland, Garret FitzGerald notoriously failed to lay a glove on Charles J Haughey.
He was right on the issue of the public finances.
Haughey dismissed his arguments with a lordly wave of the hand.
In another, Albert Reynolds ruined himself with a slip of the tongue.
He meant to describe his opponent John Bruton as a "neo-unionist", but it came out instead as John Unionist.
A third factor came into play in the debate five years ago between Bertie Ahern and Michael Noonan.
Noonan won on the night, but he had already lost the election. And yet a fourth factor was in play last night in the confrontation between Bertie Ahern, with his 10-year record of undeniable achievement, and the inexperienced Enda Kenny who needed to put across an impression of gravity and competence.
He did not get any unforced errors, and with only one or two exceptions he did not provoke any.
He scored one palpable hit when he made Mr Kenny admit that the FG Justice spokesman, Jim O'Keeffe, had got the crime figures wrong.
He almost scored another on the question of Garda numbers, but Mr Kenny recovered well.
These were prime examples of Mr Ahern's superior debating skills.
However, in most respects the encounter was a draw.
He failed on the issue of policies, despite his better knowledge from his experience in government.
Mr Kenny defended his own party's policies well.
Unusually, the Taoiseach was on the back foot after a shambolic election campaign.
Mr Kenny, crucially, looked like a Taoiseach.
He made hardly any mistakes.
But the most outstanding aspect of last night's spectacle was that it was immensely boring.
There were far too many figures and there was far too little passion for confrontation.
This did not in any way resemble Kennedy versus Nixon or Fitzgerald versus Haughey.
One suspects that a great many of the viewers had switched off before the programme ended.
