That's Debatable

In the spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that at least part of this post was written before the second Presidential Debate had actually taken place.  I added to it after tonight's debate was complete, but only to keep my score up-to-date.  I will not attempt to critique the Townhall debate format or the performances given by the two candidates for reasons that I hope will become apparent by the end of this effort.

For those keeping score, I think that the existing debates stand at 1-1-1.  Nobody doubts that Mitt Romney won the first debate, since his competitor (the President) seemed either uninterested or just didn't show up (perhaps Eastwood's empty chair at the Republican Convention was prescient).  The Biden / Ryan debate has enough people still willing to argue over who won to call it a draw.  I'm giving this last one, though it was awfully close, to the President; not so much for what he said or did (though he did much better than his first effort), but for the glaring opportunities that Romney failed to take advantage of (and which he may come to regret before the election's over).  

I should also note that this may be another case of winning the battle and losing the war, as Romney's performance (mediocre as I thought it was) is likely to do him far more good than the President's will do him.

Last night's Townhall-style debate has little to do with classic debate and less to do with a Townhall.  The only truly amazing part of this may be the continuing ability of organizers to find an audience that's so disconnected from a campaign that's been going on for at least two decades (only years, really?), and so oblivious about how politics and government works that they remain undecided less than three weeks before an election.  All of that being said, the problem that I'm faced with is that win, lose, or draw, whether I should care or not.    

Winning a political debate these days is as much a contest of memory as it is of the positions that the candidate holds.  Days of 'debate prep' (better known as cramming in my school days) has long since turned these events into a contest over who will be able to remember their zingers under the hot lights and pressure of a nationally televised stage.  It's a example of a classic educational process that produces more functionally illiterate high school graduates every year ... memorize and regurgitate upon command.

The candidates are judged (fairly or unfairly) on their ability to memorize their talking points, along with some cherry-picked statistics, and regurgitate them when and if the opportunity presents itself. The live audience and media, like the mindlessly hungry little baby birds they are, gratefully receive these spewed talking points as if they were actual nourishment instead of mostly substance-less filler.  He who manages to upchuck the most in this battle of the political hurlers is at the end declared the winner.

The problem with all of this is one pesky little question:

What does any of that have to do with the qualities of leadership required to become President?

I mean its not like you are going to be daily challenged in front of an audience to retain esoteric data, that's what you have a cabinet fully of Secretaries and Undersecretaries (and recently, Czars) for.  It's not like the ability to fire back zingers when on a phone call in the Oval Office is going to help you get the job done right.  It's certainly not that repeating the same talking points over and over until we tune you out will move the country forward.  Debates are ultimately about winning an argument (often by fair means or foul) and little or nothing about facts or reason; and we've had too damn much of that going on in recent years.

Leading this nation is far from being the nation's 'Debater In Chief".  It's not about beating the other team, despite what we've seen lately; and in spite of the common myth, leadership is not about reaching compromise.  Oh sure, there will be debate, especially in the legislature, but the Chief Executive's job is to initiate that debate to a common purpose and moderate it to see whether what can be achieved is a goal worth reaching. Leadership is also about finding common ground upon which to build consensus of opinion; and to use that consensus to move a nation forward. 


As for what can only laughingly be called debates these days:
None of the talents of true leadership is either called upon or demonstrated in this year's multimedia circuses.  Points in the real world of governing are not achieved by encroaching on someone's personal space, and success is not achieved by mildly insulting insinuation.    

Since they are no longer the sweeping give and take on actual issues, they're not really educational.  Since they are supposedly designed around undecided voters who seem almost annoyingly unable to come to a decision between candidates, they are far too simplistic.  Since they are continuing to occur after early voting in many states has already begun, they are to some extent irrelevant.  

In fact the only really good part about looking forward is that we have only one more of these made for TV by political operative monstrosities left before election day.

Of course even that's debatable.....

Presidential Debate Zingers

(Anyone expecting serious political analysis in what follows will find themselves disappointed at best.)  

Well we're only one day away from what the media has been hyping as the most momentous political event of this year's presidential election (at least so far).  It's not that I don't understand how the media has lost all sense, other than their own sense of self-importance, can believe that watching two politicians dodging direct answers to often set up questions in front of cameras is in any way unusual, let alone consequential (at least in a sarcastic way).  After all, there are going to be three more debates for presidential candidates, and one for their running mates.  Of course, such contestation will be on every regular and all the news networks, giving it some significance; but given that many will choose to ignore such posturing, they might also want to consider the importance of the day when the nation's electorate actually gets to cast ballots (unless of course, you think that some of them will be similarly be voting four times) as a day of equal or greater importance.

I've examined the records of these two debate participants (part of the job), noting in passing that this first face-off will be heard in the Rocky Mountain state, and have come to the conclusion that this one may well be shaping up to be as exciting as a singing contest between Coloradans John Denver vs Dan Fogelberg.  Both have delivered some outstanding efforts in the past (Denver and Fogelberg, not Obama and Romney), but neither seems likely to produce an outstanding performance this week, having achieved room temperature some years back (pick your pair here).

The incumbent President's talking heads are already saying that it's likely that Romney will likely win this first debate, citing his experience in recent full contact efforts in the Republican primaries.  This seems somewhat strange, considering in how little esteem they hold any Republicans.  When you add that these same people believe that their candidate is the smartest person on the planet and therefore one who finds such mundane duties as security briefings and meetings with foreign leaders as unnecessary, such pronouncements seem rather incongruous.  There's also something almost tawdry in setting the nation's expectations about your candidate's ability to lead so high, and his ability to defend the way he's done so the last four years so low.

On the other hand, Barack Obama's opponent has shown himself over the last two election cycles as a true 'plain Jane, white bread' Republican, often full of retread ideas; coming off as dull as only a politician can, and as compelling as an allergy commercial.  Being a mainstream Republican, one must also keep in mind his party's latent ability to as the WSJ's Stephen Moore has said, "never to pass up an opportunity to pass up an opportunity", refusing to recognize or take advantage when their opponents expose a policy weakness in a very public way.  

Failure to allow any other serious candidates into the debate since the Ross Perot debacle now means that there's something to be said for the idea that both the media and the two major political parties have turned presidential dialectics into a 'Last Comic Standing' event.  There's compelling evidence to make one think they've succeeded so well, that it's now little more than two clowns doing extended stand-up tours full of their best 'one liners'.  There are those who go even further to say that the tragic humor in this process is that there's far less difference between the party platforms (routines) than they'd like us to believe; much like there's far less difference in the speed at which they're driving the nation off of the 'Thelma and Louise' cliff approaching.

Unfortunately, it's the very media that has been hyping the upcoming contest as critical to deciding who the next leader of this nation is (close elections make good television), that will immediately be casting aside 90% of what's said after the debate is over.  They will instead make a big deal out of a couple of the 'Zingers' delivered by one candidate or another.   The President himself in a recent speech in Las Vegas reinforced this point, hinting that his opponent might even have a 'Zinger advantage'.  

(For those who may not know, a 'Zinger' is a term used to describe a witty remark.  Real Zingers however are cake treats with creme filling, shipped to stores under both the Hostess and Dolly Madison brands, though both are owned by the same Interstate Bakeries.  Neither of the tastier versions unfortunately, will be delivered by either candidate at the debate venue.)         

Based on the writing skills available to current politicians, it seems likely that a memorable line or two might come out of these debates.  Unfortunately, it's equally likely that little else will be remembered from each night's event.  Regardless of political persuasion, these lines will be played ad nauseum on the news, and used in paid political ads as well.  Most are occasionally clever, seldom truly memorable, and usually of far more concern to the media repeating them than to voters who they expect to judge candidates by them.

Without being able to predict the winner of the first debate, let alone the four that follow (including that of the VP's), and without being able to anticipate the eventual victor in election itself; there is one conclusion that I have already been able to come to regarding the entire debate process and its Zingers however:  

I always liked Twinkies better anyway.