EVENT
Experience has made me a bit more cynical about these things, and maybe I overshot reality in my perception of the debate yesterday.
A lot of commentary has shown that, while there wasn’t a definitive winner, Kerry succeeded in kicking off some of the shackles that have clung to him throughout the campaign, while Bush seemed as mired in his usual weaknesses as ever.
A friend emailed me and complained that nothing was said during the debate.
As an audience member; I marginally disagree…
Throughout the argument about the Iraq war (which took up almost three-quarters of the debate) many of their disagreements were in the past tense. This doesn’t mean I would expect their policies to be similar. Rather, their future differences were necessarily vague, since Bush depends on a follow-through of efforts already initiated, and Kerry hopes for an international dialogue which is almost completely lacking right now.
The differences on Iran, Russia, and the Sudan, while not necessarily what I might have expected, were appreciably different.
As an actor, I strongly disagree with my friend.
And this is based on my cynical supposition that Americans are more interested in comfort than reason.
I don’t mean comfort in the “I love my La-Z-Boy” sense, as much as a desire of calm assurance.
While much of the debate may have centered on glossed-over repetitions of facts, there was plenty of rhetorical action. Yesterday’s debate had more to do with body language, coherance, and most of all, sharp clarity, than any other debate I have seen. Bush knew, I think, that if he could imply Kerry to be a you-know-what on national TV, it would stick with many voters. And Kerry knew that Bush’s one-note argument is one of self-assurance… to cast it instead as what Paul Krugman calls an “infallibility complex,” was basically all he needed.
In short, they’ve both passed up on the nickel slots and have hit roulette wheel. There’s only one number you can win on, but when you win, you win big.
I initially thought that Bush was coming out ahead… precisely based on my “comfort vs. reason” theory. Bush emotes… his voice shakes with sincerity… I appreciate the technique, the discretion, and the subtlety of this… if you project humility, you never really have to admit you’re wrong.
Kerry projected thought and clarity. He pulled fewer punches than he has in the past (despite what my other friends thought last night). But he’s still down on account of a lack of “warmth.” It’s just easier for your Michigan swing-voter to picture Bush as the guy you’d sit down next to in a bar, who’d share your concerns and worries, and not an inept businessman who somehow got put at the helm of the most powerful nation in the world.
I’m taking a few rhetorical liberties myself, but you see my point.
It looks from a number of polls and editorials like Kerry might have ultimately come out on top of the debate.
And while I wasn’t so optimistic last night, it did seem like in the final moments, the respective strengths of the two flip-flopped. In his closing statements, Kerry spoke calmly but with almost spontaneous sense of assurrance. And Bush delivered his Biblically inspired wind-down with stiff rigidity, as if from a cue card. I thought spontaneity was his corner of the ring.
I’m intrigued. I’m curious to see where this goes next.
* * * * *
Here are some links that may be of interest:
The Overview. Bush and Kerry Clash Over Iraq in Debate. New York Times.
The Lone-Star Iconoclast.
This is the local Crawford rag, and it does seem to be the local Crawford rag. They’ve endorsed Kerry. It’s an interesting read, although their sentiment is apparently not representative of the town as a whole.
EDIT: I also liked Whet’s take on this.
Read it at Radiation Vibe.
More later.
~ Connor