26 October 2012
Who Won the Presidential Debates?
The objective of a Presidential Debate is not to win it on points. Perspiration on Nixon's brow did not lose his contest with Kennedy on debating points. The format of a debate has simply been used to provide another opportunity for the candidates to try to influence voters in our TV-dominated culture.
The real winner of the Presidential debates is the candidate who can use that format more effectively to draw voters to conclude he or she would better serve the voters' private interests. Part of being effective at achieving that goal is convincing the media that he or she won the debate--not on debating points but as a Public Relations victory. The majority of voters do not make up their own minds, nor know how or care to judge a performance on debating points. They rely on the media to tell them what to think.
Those of us who analyze a debate on the basis of fine points of fact and argumenting strategy fail to recognize that the Presidential election is not a method of selecting the best debater in the country. (Hopefully, if needed, the eventual President could hire a good debater for the White House staff.) No, the objective is to force undecided viewers and listeners to focus on the issues that the next President will have to resolve on their behalf and to persuade them that he or she is more likely reliably to accomplish favorable results. (Another objective is to avoid making the kind of gaf that people will remember long after election day.)
Those who judge the debates on debating points are unlikely to be undecided voters. The only ones whose voting behavior will be influenced by the debates are probably those whose minds will be made up by information spoon-feeders in the public media anyway. That's what made Ronald Reagan such a memorable and loved President--he was an effective influencer, regardless of the policies he espoused or executed. The winner of the Presidential debates is always the one who knows how to use them to push fence-sitters over to his or her side.
The objective of a Presidential Debate is not to win it on points. Perspiration on Nixon's brow did not lose his contest with Kennedy on debating points. The format of a debate has simply been used to provide another opportunity for the candidates to try to influence voters in our TV-dominated culture.
The real winner of the Presidential debates is the candidate who can use that format more effectively to draw voters to conclude he or she would better serve the voters' private interests. Part of being effective at achieving that goal is convincing the media that he or she won the debate--not on debating points but as a Public Relations victory. The majority of voters do not make up their own minds, nor know how or care to judge a performance on debating points. They rely on the media to tell them what to think.
Those of us who analyze a debate on the basis of fine points of fact and argumenting strategy fail to recognize that the Presidential election is not a method of selecting the best debater in the country. (Hopefully, if needed, the eventual President could hire a good debater for the White House staff.) No, the objective is to force undecided viewers and listeners to focus on the issues that the next President will have to resolve on their behalf and to persuade them that he or she is more likely reliably to accomplish favorable results. (Another objective is to avoid making the kind of gaf that people will remember long after election day.)
Those who judge the debates on debating points are unlikely to be undecided voters. The only ones whose voting behavior will be influenced by the debates are probably those whose minds will be made up by information spoon-feeders in the public media anyway. That's what made Ronald Reagan such a memorable and loved President--he was an effective influencer, regardless of the policies he espoused or executed. The winner of the Presidential debates is always the one who knows how to use them to push fence-sitters over to his or her side.
23 October 2012
Defection of Obama Support
Barack Obama surprisingly garnered significant financial support for his first Presidential election campaign from wealthy Wall Street and other business executives who seem to have defected four years later to the ranks of Mitt Romney supporters or to be refraining from making political contributions altogether. When he made his initial run for the office, Mr. Obama soon proved himself to be a serious contender and offered conscientious voters an opportunity to right their long-time embarrassment over never having elected an African American to the country’s highest political office. The same compulsion, substituting gender for race, was a major driver behind the quick success of Hilary Clinton’s Democratic primary campaign.
Unfortunately for him as the incumbent when they happened, the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis saddled Mr. Obama with the blame regardless of his historic importance. It is a convenient angle for his opponent to play—that a different economic recovery program would have shown better results, whether it had been larger or more dependent on private sector investments. And yet, the missing weapon in Mr. Obama’s gunbelt this time compared to 2008 is the novelty of his race. The country has now filled that holster but finds it not to be sufficient for restoring our economic health. Obama must convince the public that in addition to his unique background, he also has the best solutions to our problems.
Race won’t be a deciding factor in Mr. Obama’s bid for reelection. He must win in November 2012 by showing that he will do a better job than his opponent dealing with the state of the country’s affairs; that the approach he demonstrated in the last four years will be more successful in achieving our common goals than that espoused by Mitt Romney. Of course, he can’t change the record of actions and policies during his first term; but he can spin them to look more attractive than the uncertainties promised by his opponent. We’re still not better off than we were at the end of 2008, although our prospects are. The question today is, who will make us better off in 2016 than we are now, both in terms of prospects and material wealth?
Barack Obama surprisingly garnered significant financial support for his first Presidential election campaign from wealthy Wall Street and other business executives who seem to have defected four years later to the ranks of Mitt Romney supporters or to be refraining from making political contributions altogether. When he made his initial run for the office, Mr. Obama soon proved himself to be a serious contender and offered conscientious voters an opportunity to right their long-time embarrassment over never having elected an African American to the country’s highest political office. The same compulsion, substituting gender for race, was a major driver behind the quick success of Hilary Clinton’s Democratic primary campaign.
Unfortunately for him as the incumbent when they happened, the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis saddled Mr. Obama with the blame regardless of his historic importance. It is a convenient angle for his opponent to play—that a different economic recovery program would have shown better results, whether it had been larger or more dependent on private sector investments. And yet, the missing weapon in Mr. Obama’s gunbelt this time compared to 2008 is the novelty of his race. The country has now filled that holster but finds it not to be sufficient for restoring our economic health. Obama must convince the public that in addition to his unique background, he also has the best solutions to our problems.
Race won’t be a deciding factor in Mr. Obama’s bid for reelection. He must win in November 2012 by showing that he will do a better job than his opponent dealing with the state of the country’s affairs; that the approach he demonstrated in the last four years will be more successful in achieving our common goals than that espoused by Mitt Romney. Of course, he can’t change the record of actions and policies during his first term; but he can spin them to look more attractive than the uncertainties promised by his opponent. We’re still not better off than we were at the end of 2008, although our prospects are. The question today is, who will make us better off in 2016 than we are now, both in terms of prospects and material wealth?
11 October 2012
What Debate?
President Obama failed to win his competition with Governor Romney on October 3, 2012, because he thought he really was engaged in a debate. He argued convincingly in the minds of his supporters that his three and a half years in the White House have seen progress in the achievement of some important social, economic and strategic goals—broadening health care insurance coverage, mitigating a devastating worldwide financial collapse, correcting an overblown military response to the stunning 9/11 attack. But in the minds of the national media and the critical undecided minority of the prospective electorate, he appeared unsure.
It mattered little whether Governor Romney was truthful and consistent about his own policies, or accurate about his facts. The important thing was that his presentation was persuasive. President Obama certainly can be persuasive, as he was in 2004 through 2008. Then, as now in the case of Governor Romney, he was telling us what we wanted to hear. We were afraid at the end of the Bush Administration that we had mistakenly handed control of the country’s destiny to a reckless group of true-believers. After four years of unaccustomed economic stall, nearly half the country is unwilling to believe that good old American gumption couldn’t have snapped us out of it.
President Obama needs to inspire admiration of his audacity in thinking that he can persist in pursuing his goals while overcoming a frustratingly slow economic recovery, not win debating points. Robert’s Rules of Order do not apply in this forum. Like the television entertainment industry, he must get the audience to come back for more.
President Obama failed to win his competition with Governor Romney on October 3, 2012, because he thought he really was engaged in a debate. He argued convincingly in the minds of his supporters that his three and a half years in the White House have seen progress in the achievement of some important social, economic and strategic goals—broadening health care insurance coverage, mitigating a devastating worldwide financial collapse, correcting an overblown military response to the stunning 9/11 attack. But in the minds of the national media and the critical undecided minority of the prospective electorate, he appeared unsure.
It mattered little whether Governor Romney was truthful and consistent about his own policies, or accurate about his facts. The important thing was that his presentation was persuasive. President Obama certainly can be persuasive, as he was in 2004 through 2008. Then, as now in the case of Governor Romney, he was telling us what we wanted to hear. We were afraid at the end of the Bush Administration that we had mistakenly handed control of the country’s destiny to a reckless group of true-believers. After four years of unaccustomed economic stall, nearly half the country is unwilling to believe that good old American gumption couldn’t have snapped us out of it.
President Obama needs to inspire admiration of his audacity in thinking that he can persist in pursuing his goals while overcoming a frustratingly slow economic recovery, not win debating points. Robert’s Rules of Order do not apply in this forum. Like the television entertainment industry, he must get the audience to come back for more.
