The State of the Race

 

I am profoundly depressed by the state of the polls in the Canadian election. Careny and the Liberals are projected to win a majority government, and I believe this will be the end of democracy in Canada; even the end of Canada. See my last post.

It would be divine justice for the arrogance of so many Canadians: thinking they are better than Americans, and better that Albertans and Saskatchewanians, and those guys had better just give us what we want, or else…

Narcissistic thinking.

Too many Conservative commentators are relying on the polls being wrong. That is an irrational, delusional, thought. That too is narcissistic thinking: as though the world is obliged to conform to my desires.

I think it is rational, at least, to hold out some hope for the upcoming debates. Because he is leading in the polls, all the other parties will be attacking Carney. And leaving each other alone. Blanchet is masterful in debate; and his party's current situation gives him every reason to go for broke and try for the knockout. Poilievre is masterful. Singh is desperate. Carney’s French is limited. And he has little experience in debate. He was not challenged in the Liberal leadership debate. He has been prickly even taking questions from essentially friendly reporters. He is not good at taking criticism. He is liable to blow his cool, or look a fool, or be caught lying.

I think the drip, drip, drip of scandals may also catch up with him. I overheard on the bus a few days ago one guy trying to convince others that Carney’s ties to the CCP are too sinister. Now there is the scandal of dirty tricks at a Conservative event. There is the issue of using tax havens. There is the issue of lying about moving his corporate headquarters to the States. There is the issue of possible conflicts of interest, and lack of transparency on what he owns. There has to be a tipping point.

We can pray and hope.

That's Debatable

Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960.

In both Canada and the US, we are about to hear the first candidate debates of the current elections. My great regret, as a political junkie, is that the Canadian and US debates are scheduled, as usual, for the same time. This is done, of course, because were it not so, few in Canada would be watching. They would just switch to some American network for the regular programming.

They are not, of course, really “debates.” There is no topic. Nobody expects to hear a new argument; there is little opportunity to build one. In their debates in 2004, I think John Kerry clearly bested George Bush in terms of debating points. Yet Bush “won,” largely by ignoring any semblance of debate and repeating familiar points. The same thing happened in the Canadian leaders' debates in 2008. Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Elizabeth May and Gilles Duceppe all piled on Stephen Harper. Harper mostly just sat there and smiled, making his own case, responding to nothing. By debate rules, he lost badly. Yet polls said he won the debate, and he won the election. The others seemed angry; people admired Harper for taking it all calmly.

So these are not so much “debates” as joint press conferences, or, better, beauty contests. We watch and listen not to be persuaded by argument, but for blunders or zingers. It's kind of like watching a stock car race: we're mostly looking for a crack-up. One might see this as unkind and unworthy. Or one might see this as trying to discern something about the candidates' characters.

This was obvious from the very first famous televised candidates' debate, Kennedy-Nixon, in 1960. On points, most agree, Nixon at least held his own. But in political terms, Nixon lost badly, so badly that he refused ever to debate anyone again. His problem was that Kennedy looked relaxed and natural, whereas he looked stiff and uncomfortable.

And so it has been ever since.

The gaffe I remember best personally was Gerald Ford's insistence, against Carter in 1976, that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet domination. Ford confirmed the suspicion that he was in way over his head as President, that he was in the end a local pol with no wider vision than the next Rotary Club luncheon. It was not that Carter or Ford had made any kind of coherent point here; just a revelation of Ford's insufficiency.

In Canada, perhaps the best remembered score in debate is Mulroney's “you had a choice, sir. You could have said no” against Turner in 1984. But this was not argument; it was a simple negation of Turner's immediately prior statement that he “had no choice” (in making a batch of political appointments immediately on becoming prime minister. His larger claim was that this was part of a deal made with his predecessor, Trudeau). Again, this was not debate, not even a point scored by Mulroney, but a self-inflicted wound. It was the claim to have no control that killed Turner; Mulroney merely echoed the obvious. What kind of leader was this, who started out by refusing to take responsibility?

Tuner nailed himself again, at least in my opinion, on his second go-round with Mulroney in 1988, with the phrase most people remember from that debate: “I happen to think that you've sold us out” (speaking of free trade). To me, at least, that phrase, “happen to think,” implied either a misunderstanding of what thought actually entailed, or a lack of principle. As if political positions, in Turner's mind, could honourably be put on or taken off at whim, without any larger body of thought behind them. This was the more striking, to me, because opposition to free trade went against bedrock liberal principles; and Turner was leader of the Liberal Party. I'm not sure anyone but I noticed; but it made it impossible for me to vote for him.

Another famous line from a debate is Lloyd Bentsen's against Dan Quayle in 1988: “I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.” But in fact, this was not an argument at all, and was, as Quayle responded at the time, “uncalled for.” First, it was ad hominem, and second, it was non sequitor. Quayle had not said he was like John Kennedy in any sense but his relative lack of experience. It worked, because it suggested Quayle was both inexperienced and callow.

Michael Dukakis blundered badly during the same campaign by taking a debate to actually be a debate. Asked if he would change his mind on opposing the death penalty if someone raped and killed his wife Kitty, he answered, properly, that his position opposing capital punishment was perfectly consistent. But the answer made him come across to the audience as a soulless suit.

Then there's Rick Perry's “oops” in the 2012 Republican debates. Obviously, no debate points scored. Ron Paul, at the next podium, even tried to help jog Perry's memory. It was the kind of memory freeze anyone could have. But it destroyed Perry's hyper-macho image. James Bond is not supposed to slip on the soap.

Reagan's “I paid for this microphone” in 1980 erased the suspicion that he was just too easygoing to be effective as president. His “I will not use my opponent's youth and inexperience against him” was a response to a moderator's question, not to anything raised by Walter Mondale. And, of course, it involved no argument.

Ali vs. Liston, 1965.

Then there's Stockdale's “Why am I here?” in the 1992 VP debates. Okay, that had no legitimate point or purpose, since he had no chance of becoming VP anyway. It was just an awesome car crash.

So what does this mean? First, it is not unreasonable that we judge our candidates this way. Issues come and go over the course of four years. We have other ways of learning our politicians' stands. It makes sense instead to try to grasp their character. If there turns out to be a big disparity between their public and their private character, this is of limited importance. As a leader primarily of people who will only ever see them on TV, their public character is more relevant than their private persona anyway to their ability to lead.

At the same time, these “debates” run the risk of seriously debasing the popular idea of what a debate is or should be. This is important, because the ability to debate properly is a sine qua non of democracy.

The First Debate: Any Bets?

Kennedy debates Nixon. Nixon loses on makeup.

The first US Presidential debate is tomorrow. If I were a betting man, I’d bet Romney will be declared the “winner.” Here’s why:

First, the polls say people are expecting Obama to do better. That means Romney has a lower bar in order to impress. We also know that Obama’s record is not popular; people are looking for an excuse to back Romney.

Romney has had a lot more recent practice. The Republican primaries sometimes seemed like all debate, all the time. By contrast, Obama has avoided even any hard questioning for years. Indeed, it is usual for the incumbent to “lose” the first debate. Incumbents tend to come in to the first debate rusty and as if not used to being challenged. This is probably the nature of the job. And Obama is certainly capable of seeming distracted and unengaged.

Carter debates Ford: Ford loses on geography.

Obama is a good speaker, but he has never shown himself to be a particularly good debater. Romney’s performance in the past, on the other hand, has been pretty solid. I think overall he did second best in his field of seven, after Newt Gingrich, as a debater. And as Gingrich says, he seems particularly good when the chips are down.

We also know Romney has spent more time than Obama prepping for this particular debate.

But there’s more. I think it is interesting that Obama has retired for three days to what is essentially a luxury golf resort in Nevada in order to prepare for the debates. We know the President is an avid golfer. If he does not plan to play golf, this location is going to be a major distraction to his preparations. If he does plan to play golf, this location is going to be a very major distraction to his preparations. So why did his campaign choose this location? See my previous musings that Obama may not be all that driven to win a second term. He might find the chance to get in a little golf in the middle of the campaign more important than winning reelection. If so, not only will he enter the debate unprepared; he may enter the debate not entirely sure he wants to win the debate.

Carter debates Reagan: Reagan wins on geniality.

Finally, this time the press may not be on his side to spin things for him. Regardless of the press’s partisan bias, which is real, there is one thing above all else that matters to a journalist. That is maintaining a good narrative, finding “news,” keeping things interesting. What would be the biggest news that could come out of the debate? Romney campaign collapses? Nope; they’ve been running with that one for a couple of weeks now. At this point, it risks being boring. The best news angle would now be the opposite of that: Obama strikes out in first debate; can Romney close the gap? This is another reason why the incumbent is almost always seen to lose the first debate, and a reason why whoever is the underdog at this point almost always starts moving up. Accordingly, if the media are given an opening that allows it, they will be most inclined to spin this in Romney’s favour, even if they do all personally want Obama to win.

Romney debates everyone.

Is it possible the mainstream media are really so partisan they would refuse to do this if the opening occurred? Perhaps; but only if they are Democrats first, and journalists second.