Part One:
WHAT MADE TRUMP AND BIDEN THE PEOPLE THEY ARE TODAY?
We speak with Michael Kirk, producer of “The Choice 2020: Trump vs. Biden,” the newest installment of FRONTLINE’s acclaimed election-year coverage. The series presents interwoven investigative biographies of both major-party candidates for president.
When thinking about this election, most voters are concerned about the crises facing us all: The pandemic, racial reckoning, collapse of the econ, the climate crisis. But “The Choice” focuses on a different dimension. It proceeds from two premises: “Personality is destiny” and “The boy is father to the man.” (The gender of the latter may have to change in the next election.) The show picks eight challenging moments in each candidate’s life and examines how he developed a response to it. Together, the lessons the candidate learns from these crises accumulate into a “life message.” They learn from one experience, incorporate it into subsequent crises, etc.
Thus, Kirk is not so much analyzing what they’re doing/saying now, during the election campaign. Rather, he is “reverse engineering” the narrative. For example, Trump never apologizes; he name-calls and demonizes. But how did he develop these tendencies?
“The Choice” figures out why each candidate now acts the way he does, what experiences got them there, what made them into the kind of person they are today. (From that, voters can decide for ourselves whether that’s who we want leading us – no matter what issue or challenge arises.)
Part Two:
AS CONCERNS MOUNT OVER INTEGRITY OF U.S. ELECTIONS, SO DOES SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL POLL MONITORS.
We discuss the integrity of the upcoming US election with Professor Timothy Rich, Western Kentucky University Political Science Professor who focuses on electoral reform. Rich and his team conducted polls among both Democrats and Republicans asking whether they would like to see an independent set of international observers monitoring US elections in November. The results were consistent and broad-based: approximately 70% of American voters – a similar number from both parties – support the idea of international monitors in order to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.
Over the years, the international monitoring of elections has most often taken place in young democracies where free and fair elections are not a long-standing norm for choosing a government. Jimmy Carter’s international monitoring work comes to mind. The US is obviously a more mature democracy, with centuries of election experience. Nevertheless, Prof. Rich’s research shows that American voters would feel more comfortable – in these times of crisis, division and anger – knowing that some objective, trained group would observe our election, talk to election workers, look at election documents, and make sufficient inquiries to determine that the outcomes were reached in a fair and democratic manner. We all want election results we can trust.
