It's Debatable

Though I've steered clear of Politics on this blog so far, it is meant to be a space for miscellaneous observations (hence the name), so I want to write briefly about last night's U.S. Presidential Debate. 

First, full disclosure: I am a registered Democrat and a supporter, in this election, of President Obama. So, you may count or discount my opinion as your partisanship moves you.

After finally seeing a good portion of the debate this morning, (I was otherwise engaged last evening), and reading and listening to the "analysis" of said debate, I have come to a conclusion: What is actually said by the candidates matters very little, excepting any "gotcha" gaffes such as Dan Quayle comparing himself to John Kennedy and opening himself up for Lloyd Bentsen's memorable rejoinder. (Speaking of which, if you're too young to have seen that moment, or saw it, but want a reminder of how a debater can make his point, and attack the opposition while maintaining a dignified, calm demeanor, go to youtube and search "Quayle-Bentsen.")

If one needs any evidence as to the fact that it is perception, rather than substance, that matters at these debates, one need only recall the actions of both campaigns in the past weeks leading up to last night's event.  Both camps went out of their way to paint the opposition as the more capable, more prepared debater.  The Obama campaign released statements with regard to the President having less time to prepare for the debate than his opponent, and how good Romney is at debating.  The Romney camp, on the other hand, made the point that the President is known as a good orator and that he would be a formidable opponent in a debate.  Though these practices may seem counter-intuitive, there is a good reason for them: to lower expectations, especially among the media.

To understand this, ask yourself who actually decides the "winner of a debate? (We'll leave aside for the moment the question of whether we should go about choosing a "winner" as if it was a sporting event.)  Generally it is the political analysts for the networks, newspapers and websites that make up the political media.  They all have their break-downs and post-mortems and bring in various experts to analyze the performance of both candidates.

"Performance" is exactly the correct word, too, because if you pay attention to the way the pundits talk about the debate, you will find that is what they are actually analyzing: how each candidate looked and sounded, rather than what was said.  Prior to the debate, each party wanted the expectations of the media to be as low as possible so that its candidate's "performance" would exceed those expectations by as wide a margin as possible. 

So, we now know that the consensus appears to be that Mitt Romney "won" the debate.  What reason is generally being given for this victory?  Romney appeared "relaxed," "confident," well-rehearsed,"  "aggressive," "polished."  Obama was "hesitant," "defensive," "reflective."  Romney's answers were "direct," "black-and-white."  Obama's were "winding," "provisional." 

I would argue there is a reason for this perception:  President Obama spoke a bit like one of my old law professors, while Mitt Romney's stock in trade were anecdotes and attempts to position himself to the Political Center; so much so that he ended up agreeing with Obama on several issues.

Let's take just the first 15 minute segment, ostensibly about "jobs."  The talk turned to taxes and the deficit almost immediately, with Obama stating that the deficit had to be reduced "responsibly" so that investment could be made in renewable energy, jobs programs and education.  He also called out Romney's proposal to cut taxes that would cost approximately $5 Trillion from the Federal treasury. 

Romney responded first by doing what he did all evening: trotting out anecdotes.  He "met a man who lost his job" and said "can you help me?"  His wife "met a woman" whose husband had had several part-time jobs and asked "can you help me?"  These are rhetorical ploys that mean absolutely nothing when it comes to public policy affecting the entire country.  (To be clear, the Democrats are guilty of using this tactic as well; Obama did not use it in this segment of the debate, however.) Romney also said he "had no $5 trillion tax cut," and that everything the president said in one of his answers was inaccurate.  Romney's own website states that his tax goals are to:

"Reduce individual marginal income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent, whilekeeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Reduce the corporateincome tax rate – the highest in the world – to 25 percent."

The $5 Trillion dollar figure comes from a study done by the independent Tax Policy Center (which may be affiliated with the Brookings Institute), which showed the cuts Romney proposes to cost $360 Billion in the first year, which extrapolated to $5 Trillion over ten years. 

So, Obama should have been clearer in his representation of the tax cuts; and I really wish both sides, when citing "studies" would identify what studies they are talking about.  Romney at one point said, "I have six studies that say (the study referenced by Obama) is wrong."  Which ones? By what organizations?  Of course Obama didn't identify the study he cited, either.

According to the debate last night, Romney also wants to invest in energy and education, although it is unclear from where the funds to do this would come. 

One last thing I must point out about the debate has to do with health care.  Romney declared that "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."  This is a part of "Obamacare" that consistently polls favorably among voters.  Last night, a top Romney advisor  Eric Fehrnstrom restated what the Romney plan is with regard to pre-existing conditions.  Basically, he said Romney wants to ensure people who have no lapse in coverage continue to have coverage; which is exactly the way the system worked before Obamacare. Pre-existing conditions aren't "pre-existing" is there is no lapse in coverage.  With regard to people without insurance or with a 90-day lapse in coverage, Romney "hopes states will do what Massachusetts has done," which is ban pre-existing conditions.  So, Romney's plan is to "hope" states do what Obama's plan already does.

That's not the kind of "hope" I'm looking for, especially living in a state whose governor may have been involved in one of the biggest medicaid frauds ever perpetrated against the citizens of the United States.