Sunday October 28, 2012

Talking the walk

Behind The Headlines
By Bunn Nagara

Falling short: Romney (left) and Obama during the third presidential debate in Florida. Anyone expecting the debate to be a spirited exchange over significant issues would have been disappointed. — AFP

Political debates and opinion polls make headlines, though seldom if ever the crucial elections they fuss over.

WHEN presidential candidate Barack Obama ran for office in 2008, his biggest asset was that he was not George W. Bush.

The relatively inexperienced senator had a different style, a different focus, a different lingo and a different social and personal background. He also boasted a different agenda from Bush and the Republicans generally.

By then, Bush Republicans had so defiled the American psyche that party contender John McCain could do little else but lose. Obama had further sold his candidacy on “hope and change”.

One White House term later, President Obama’s re-election is far less certain than his election. If the earlier optimism now seems like a dim and distant memory, it is because his once largest asset is no more.

The Republican contender, former governor Mitt Romney, is also not George W. Bush. Never mind that Romney and Bush share the same party and many ideas, priorities, goals and even policies.

Also, easily two-thirds of Romney’s foreign policy team are former Bush advisers; one report cites 15 of 22, another says 17 of 24. They are led by senior neo-conservative hawk and reputed warmonger John Bolton.

But these Bush “roots” lie concealed, with neither Bush nor Bolton openly campaigning for Romney. The Republicans are really hoping to win, so party liabilities are kept in the closet.

Obama has also lost his anticipated lead over Romney because the Democrat has proven to be something less of a democrat. His promises of hope and change have too often produced disappointment and stagnation instead.

This has further made Obama vulnerable in the series of presidential debates with Romney. Obama has a record that can be perforated and shown to be more hollow than solid; Romney is not an incumbent so provides no such opportunities.

However, anyone expecting presidential debates to be a spirited exchange over significant issues would have been disappointed. It was too easy to overlook those recent appearances as debates, mistaking them for celebrity chat shows instead.

Viewers were offered testy soundbites, petulant rejoinders and basically extended campaign advertising instead of mature views, intelligent commentary or competent policy presentations. The skilful cut-and-thrust of a debate was conspicuous by its absence.

If one candidate did not do “too badly”, it was only because the other did not do well either. Any compliment to one had to come by default from the other.

But the party faithful would of course have nothing of that. Each camp predictably praised their contender’s performance, ultimately devaluing the whole debate paradigm.

Common expectations of what a political debate is about started to ebb with the first round in Denver on Oct 3. A reputedly silver-tongued Obama then seemed strangely restrained and subdued, and Romney trounced him.

In the second debate in Hempstead, Obama retrieved some points. He won narrowly, but failed to halt Romney’s Denver momentum.

The third debate produced more surprises. Romney now became restrained and subdued, and both candidates missed scoring chances with issues that came their way.

This is not inexplicable if the third debate is contextualised as resulting from the first two. Both candidates came to the table with their debate experience, without their preparation necessarily helping them.

Obama felt he still needed to claw back some points. So he came prepared for a tough fight, with a full load of chutzpah seasoned with cojones and soaked in adrenaline.

Romney, however, made a switch to coasting mode, comfortable in the momentum he had gained and not wanting to risk any gaffes.

The third debate was also focused on foreign policy, where Obama had an edge and Romney some potential weaknesses, so the Republican challenger had to tread carefully and avoid flubbing his lines.

The result: Romney tried to impress by rattling off some statistics, but he also came across as weaker and less remonstrative. Still, for some Republicans this was enough to appear “presidential”.

Obama by comparison appeared more forceful but also condescending, with his sense of sarcasm not helping him. Such attributes do not help to win debates or elections.

Romney also appeared conciliatory, which is never good in a debate for electing a “strong leader”. He said Obama’s military “surge” strategy worked, which must have riled more than a few party colleagues.

Romney agreed with Obama or endorsed his policies nearly a dozen times in 45 minutes, seeming not so much to be debating Obama for the presidency than perhaps auditioning for the vice-presidency.

In trying to look surreally relaxed with his debate opponent, Romney became another Joe Biden in the vice-president’s Oct 11 debate with Congressman Paul Ryan.

In this third presidential debate Romney looked like an excellent running mate for Obama, except that the context was to upstage Obama in vying for the presidency.

Romney this time had switched off his attack mode. He failed to capitalise on the recent US security lapse at the Benghazi consulate or on reports of a backdoor deal with Iran on its nuclear programme despite Obama’s denial of it.

Even when he chided Obama for a private understanding with Putin’s Russia instead of dealing squarely with Moscow, it was only in passing. And Romney had not suddenly mutated into a pussycat either, since he repeatedly pressed Obama on Israel.

Obama was relatively better prepared, but failed to rebut Romney’s allegation firmly that pressure for defence budget cuts came from Congress. He refused to reciprocate Romney’s conciliatory tone, craftily expressing appreciation for Romney’s endorsement of his policies.

Part of Obama’s preparation was to pre-empt any possible attack on his weak points: the domestic economy, ties with Israel, security in Libya. He mentioned them early in ways that made his administration look good, while blunting any attack by Romney on those points.

Romney’s deficits included his manner: tentative, nervous and even stammering. He confused the presidents of Iran and Iraq, as well as Assad and (Kofi) Annan, although he did correct himself.

The final summing-up by each underscored their debate positions. Obama’s delivery segued into his clearly scripted conclusion while Romney muttered motherhoods to round off.

However, after all the usual number-crunching and hair-splitting, what real purpose do the debates or the opinion polls actually serve anyway?

The known and verifiable purposes are keeping election analysts in employment, and continuing a media tradition to whatever questionable ends.

As for the debates, voters typically have already made up their minds who to vote for (or whether to vote or not). The crucial population segment is that of undecided voters, and neither candidate made particular efforts to address them.

The opinion polling itself could have been analysed and applied more productively, but as usual was not: CNN, for example, said 68% found Obama to be attacking more, to Romney’s 21%. However, this itself is meaningless unless people are also asked whether an attack mode was decisively appealing for a candidate.

Percentages were also produced for whether people thought each candidate had performed better, worse or the same as expected. Those were again senseless numbers unless attached to such valuations as whether an impressive performance would clinch a vote.

Even just for better showmanship, more candidates from more parties need to be engaged in debates, or the analysts and their analyses need to be further analysed.

News

Sunday October 28, 2012

Talking the walk

Behind The HeadlinesBy Bunn Nagara

Behind The Headlines
By Bunn Nagara