Demosophia

Bush/Kerry Debate #2

The following contains my notes and thoughts on the Second Bush/Kerry debate, as I watched it last night and as I reflected on it today. I'm posting it here, because I think I've made at least one important observation that no one else seems to have noticed. The observation is that Kerry lacks a certain competence as well as a "killer instinct," and that the lack of these attributes makes him less fit to be President, regardless of how right or wrong he happens to be. Also, I think both candidates are living in their heads more than their hearts, and this is reflected in their debate performances.

Overall I give Bush a slight edge in terms of the debate scoring, but there's an even more important issue raised here. I think Kerry had an opportunity to take the initiative and run all the way to the finish, but was insufficiently cognizant of his own surroundings to even recognize that he'd missed a critical opportunity. I don't think Kerry will get a second chance, either. The fact that the debate was close to a tie is simply an artifact of the pattern that led to a turning point, but it may be more important to score the debate in terms of who won the prelims versus who won the finals. After all, neither an election nor a debate is scored by averaging the performance over the whole contest. What's important is who manages to break at critical stages, and ultimately who gets to the finish line first.

Stage One

Debate opens with a question to Kerry about being too "wishy/washy." He responds with a comment about "Weapons of Mass Deception." Cute, but obviously hyperbolic. He follows this with a series of comments about the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind (underfunded, he says), loss of 1.6M jobs, taxcuts. Sounds kind of knowledgeable.

Bush responds with comment about vote on $87M, Kerry sending confusing signals, how Saddam was a "grave threat" and that Kerry himself changed positions on regime change.

A question for Bush about WMD. Bush raises the topic of the Duelfer report. Argues that Saddam had gone to great lengths to preserve "knowledge and means" and clearly had the intent to reformulate a WMD as soon as feasible. Stresses that these could have been given to terrorists (Al Qaeda?). Finally mentions Oil-for-Food, and the fact that Saddam was gaming "for a reason."

OK, but this argument, presented without annotation, asks a great deal of the pubic. Still, it's a start. More please...

Kerry outlines his mirror-plan, presenting it as new and innovative. Maybe some people will be reassured by this... or would be if his credibility on this issue weren't so low.

He believes "Saddam was a threat, BUT..." But what, Senator? If he was a threat, shouldn't he have been dealt with? But, well "we rushed to war." Yep, only took us 12 years and 14 broken resolutions... while the guy managed to corrupt the humanitarian mission of the UN to help him fund is dreams of grandiosity and conquest in the biggest and most cynical sellout of ideals and good intentions in the history of the world. His basic appeal here isn't to logic, but to the wishful fantasy that diplomacy works... and his evidence for this is that Saddam "had no WMD." Well, not yet... but he still had the knowledge and nothing but a growing means, so did diplomacy remove the intent through some sort of Gallic magic? If so, let's bottle that stuff.

Oh, and he'd get the training done faster. As though the man we have on that now, David Petreaus, isn't the best there is. But Kerry saluted "old glory" and he's ready for duty.

Bush responds. To me, he sounds a little desperate. Sort of disappointing, but maybe it's exasperation at how Kerry manages to put over such a dud with such apparent panache. That'd bug anyone. So far Bush hasn't hurt himself, though. Hasn't earned any real demerits.

Stubborn? He points out that people denigrated Reagan for some of the same reasons they denigrate and second-guess him. Fair point. But Bush just sounds insufficiently humble, even to my ears. And his voice has a monotonous quality. No inflection. "I did this. I did that. I'm yelling at you, don't you get it?" The delivery conveys an anticipation of defeat. It's very discouraging.

Kerry, on the other hand, is more conversational. Even though his message is the same old same old, it sounds well thought out. Broken promises, not enough forces in Iraq, if we'd only let Blix do his job, etc., etc. Well...

WHAT WILL BUSH SAY IN RESPONSE?

"The President's job is to win the Peace." Damn good slogan. Sounds clever as hell. We have generals to win wars, and Presidents to win peace. Now wait a minute... Didn't FDR, Kennedy and Reagan devote most of their presidencies to winning a war? And shouldn't winning the war be slightly higher on the triage list than winning the peace. Is winning the peace the job of the Commander in Chief. But boy, it sure sounds good!

WHAT THE HELL IS BUSH GOING TO SAY?

Kerry continues: The threat has grown. Let the inspectors do their job. While we fret about yellow-cake N. Korea moves toward nukes.

Bush finally responds. It's pretty much a non-response. I have visions of Kerry pouncing like a mountain lion. He has Bush on the ropes. The precipice looms...

Then Kerry fails to capitalize. He says something about how Missouri would be the third largest force in Iraq after US and UK, as though it wouldn't also be ahead of France, even if France were involved. But the point is...

HE LET BUSH ESCAPE!

Brief Sidebar

For me this is the critical point in the debate. I had conceived of Kerry as wrong, but competent. I was concerned that he'd bring that competence to bear on a President who was rhetorically and intellectually over-matched, and thereby win unjustly. It just had not occurred to me that Kerry was actually incompetent, because in my kind-hearted naiveté I believed that having one strike against you in the great cosmic battle (being empirically and philosophically wrong) is about as unfair as the universe gets. Surely he'd have been compensated by some sort of strategic brilliance, just to keep the contest interesting. But... NO! Kerry doesn't even have the killer instinct. He's like a contract killer that can't bring himself to dispatch the target, though he can bring himself right up to the point where he cocks the firearm. This is a complex and even an interesting creature, but he's not Presidential material.

Now, I have no doubt that Kerry can be mean... as he has been with other debaters in the past. But his objective in doing that is so self centered that he just can't bring himself to be mean for the cause. Well, it's not as though he wouldn't have done it. It's that the instinct just didn't have him poised for the kill when the time arrived. He didn't see the opening. Ultimately this point in the second debate may well be where the Presidential election slipped away from John Kerry. This was the point where history tested him, and then passed him by.

Also, by this point in the debate the audience is getting used to Bush's style, and aren't as irritated about being yelled at. It's just the way the guy talks.

Kerry, however, knows all the answers, save one. He doesn't see that the train just left him standing at the station.

Stage Two

Now we enter a stage of the debate where domestic policy is addressed, and where conventional wisdom holds that Kerry has a decided advantage. But in reality it's like that point in a life or death struggle where you felt you were about to be annihilated, and you realize your opponent is mortal. You find yourself inexplicably alive, and that inspires you to seize the advantage.

Kerry says he'd roll back the Bush tax cut. Bush responds that Kerry is the most liberal Senator, which we've all heard before... but somehow it sounds new. Bush points out that Kerry could have voted for liability reform, but chose not to, so his claims of being pro-reform are suspect. He points out that tort liability has ramifications far beyond the direct cost. It compels physicians to practice "defensive medicine." (It's almost as though he relates to this personally, and recently.) He points out that government sponsorship of health care would lead to rationing (something most Americans believe, whether it's true or not). Bush makes one good point after another, and does it without yelling!

Kerry, on the other hand, fails to answer the question about tort, and starts mumbling about his own plan.

Kerry talks, with some credibility I think, about the fact that Bush hasn't asked very much of Americans. He mentions that Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. Bush responds that we're at war, and we need to pay the troops. He's doing well now... but I fear that he'll start to coast, as he always does when he feels he's gaining. But this time it's Kerry who coasts, on an adequate but by no means stellar answer. He proposes a tax cut, but in the next breath ranks the President for cutting taxes during a war. Say, what?

Now, everyone knows that we've reached a turning point in the debate. It's quite palpable. The real turning point was a ways back, but it's now a felt reality.

Kerry proposes a "pay as you go" approach. During a war? How do you do that, and why would you even contemplate it? He's befuddled, or something. Pay as you go? Huh? And he caps off the befuddlement with the enormously ironic and lame slogan/phrase: "You gotta stand up and fight somewhere folks." Yeah thanks John. I'll write that down.

Bush counters that Kerry raises taxes at the drop of a butterfly antenna, so the whole "balanced budget/pay as you go" thing isn't credible. No one believes it is. I mean no one. It's just one of those things politicians say, that voters allow.

The President makes a lengthy and surprisingly detailed statement on the environment, outlining an initiative to develop a hydrogen automobile. Off road diesel engines. Clear Skies Initiative. Wildlife setasides. Healthy Forest Bill. Clean Coal. "Good steward of natural environment."

Kerry is non-plussed. He rambles incoherently that "labels don't mean anything?" What's he talking about? "The labels don't fit." What labels? "We're going backwards." Well somebody is, that's for sure. The one good point he makes, and it's a pretty good one, is that the EPA head (Whitman?) resigned the Bush Administration in protest. Fair enough, as far as it goes. But he doesn't capitalize on the point. He doesn't have the "will to kill." He's just regurgitating a bullet list, without any clear idea about how it fits into the debate.

The President counters by observing that all you need to do to be popular in the halls of Europe is to sign a treaty. But the Kyoto Treaty would have cost jobs, hurt the economy, etc. "Yeah, but you didn't even try to fix it," Kerry whines.

BY THIS TIME KERRY'S ACTUALLY LOSING THE DEBATE! Not by a lot mind you, but by enough that you can actually see the gap slowly starting to widen.

Bush pounces. He senses the kill. About the economy he mentions small business healthcare pools, an energy plan, healthcare savings accounts, ethanol, subchapter S corps. He knows his stuff! Agree with him or not, he stands somewhere. He's a conservative! There are no blurred lines here.

Bush responds to a question about the Patriot Act defensively, which might have hurt him had Kerry's position on the Patriot Act been halfway coherent. But Kerry whines about the fact that Racicot acknowledged it "needed changes" (which Racicot later corrects on ABC), and about the intrusions of "sneak & peak searchers," all of which are undermined by the fact that Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. The impression is, again, that Kerry will say any darned thing to win a vote or two.

The stem cell discussion was similar to the Patriot Act except that here Kerry's position was even more incoherent. Kerry is actually stumbling over the answer to a question that has been one of the centerpieces of his campaign, all while the President appears to be growing visibly more assured and relaxed.

Well, relaxed enough to talk about Dred Scott and slavery as though anyone cared about it nowadays. I have to confess I don't know what either candidate was talking about here, other than that they'd both appoint highly partisan people if they could, but they'd have to be able to make a case that the appointment was unbiased. Normal political stuff, in other words. The sort of thing that voters understand, but allow.

One point here. On several occasions during the exchange on the Supreme Court Kerry seemed to convey the impression that he thought certain liberal platform values amounted to "constitutional rights." Among these new rights were "equal pay for women," and some constitutional right to have an abortion. I have no clue what this was about. Is he panicking? Where does the Constitution mention either of these?

Back to foreign policy. Bush loses his luster, suddenly and inexplicably. (More on this later.) Kerry says that he'd "never allow another country to give a veto to America's defense, BUT... lead strong alliances, kill the terrorists, train Iraqi forces, blah, blah, blah."

In Conclusion

Bush seems animated and vital when discussing domestic policy, and lackluster when discussing foreign policy, even though he's definitely considered a foreign policy President. I've thought about this apparent paradox a good deal, and I have to conclude that the role Bush is playing as the harbinger of liberal democracy must be one he's not entirely comfortable with. He's a paleocon in neocon clothing, to some degree. It isn't that I doubt his sincerity, but the deep conviction about the instrumentality of expanding the democratic franchise doesn't come naturally to him, for one reason or another. It may be his patrician/Phillips Academy background, but I don't think he's internalized the perspective to the point that it's second nature to him (as it is with many of us). As a result he simply can't defend it without help. He probably never will be able to. It just isn't in him. A string of platitudes delivered with intense sincerity is about all he can muster. Is that good enough? I guess it'll have to be, won't it?

Posted by Demosophist at October 9, 2004 02:28 PM | TrackBack