This past Wednesday evening, in Denver, Colorado, President
Barack Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney met for the first of
three presidential debates. Over the
course of an hour and a half, the two men, rather cordially, discussed and
debated the important issues of the day.
Viewers, and by all accounts they were plentiful, saw a public
discussion to a degree and depth for which typical news coverage does not
allow. For my students, who were tasked with
watching the debate, they were able to see a bit of how their government
works. Of course, what I will not
mention to my students was my belief that Mr. Romney was outstanding and
convincing.
As pre-arranged, the debate centered on domestic issues, in
particular taxes, health care, social security and the national debt. As likely most would concede, Mr. Romney was
persuasive and in control during that exchange.
Conversely, President Obama was hesitant and unsure, too quick to be
conciliatory and too willing to accept aspects of his opponent’s points. My students picked up on this and were quick
to point it out. We discussed at length
over the course of the week the different characteristics of the exchange
between the two presidential candidates.
One, my students felt that the exchange was, at times, rude
on the part of both men. However, I was
quick to point out that during a debate, it is the moderator’s job to ensure
that each man can speak at equal lengths.
The debater must attempt to speak as long as he can and to pontificate
and elaborate as much as he can. His
concern cannot be for the other man (or woman).
In this role, Jim Lehrer, an otherwise masterful master of ceremonies
for such events since 1976, was off his game.
He decided, at some point, that he preferred the give-and-take the two
candidates were engaged in than structure and discipline. I don’t have a problem with it per se, but
many of my students misconstrued that as rudeness. In explaining the purpose of a debate and the
responsibility of a debater, the students felt that it allowed for a great
direct conversation between the two with plenty of information enumerated and
philosophies explained.
The students also admitted to be a bit confused over the
constant haggling over numbers. I have
to admit, though I’m an intelligent, educated (some would say erudite) man,
numbers make me a little tired myself.
My approach is to focus on the philosophies rather than the
statistics. The old adage of there being
“lies, damned lies and statistics” cannot be more spot on. Therefore, I prefer to listen to the paradigm
with which the candidates operate under than the numbers they manipulate
for their own purposes.
It is my firm belief that President Obama will come out
swinging during the debate on 16 October at Hofstra University in Hempstead,
New York. It will be moderated by CNN
chief political correspondent Candy Crowley and will feature a town hall format
over a slew of issues. It is doubtful
that the president will concede as much and many of the issues he has been
focused on with regards to his opponent over the last month will resurface –
items such as the 47% comment and Mr. Romney’s lack of “economic
patriotism.” However, for one night, Mr.
Romney displayed a mastery of the topic (it is within his wheelhouse, so to
speak) and joyous attitude (“It’s fun, isn’t it?”). I hope he can maintain his confidence and
control but he will need to show, within the context of a “town hall” debate,
that he can connect with the audience.
If he can do that, the campaign could begin to turn permanently.
No comments:
Post a Comment