The third presidential debate was interesting to watch. If you haven’t seen it, you should. Here‘s a good place to watch it. Except for the rehash of some domestic policy issues, they covered a lot of new territory. What follows is not a comprehensive analysis of the debate, but rather thoughts about things that stuck out to me.
One of the main things I noticed was, for all of the bluster, Romney didn’t really disagree with Obama on a lot of the substantive issues. He agreed with him on Iran in regard to sanctions, on Egypt about getting rid of Mubarak, on Syria about not putting in ground troops, and on the use of drones. (He also claimed to agree with Obama on what was necessary for the auto bailout, when the debate veered back to domestic issues.) At one point Obama even remarked on this saying Romney’s plan was just to follow Obama’s plan, but do it louder.
The problem this created for Romney was that he reversed himself on so many issues in order to agree with Obama. Having an earlier Romney debate the current Romney would have produced a much stronger contrast. Obama called him out on this too. He said that Romney’s foreign policy was “all over the map”, and gave specifics. It’s a strong point. If no one knows what your foreign policy actually is, not other heads of state, not your own staff, not even you yourself, how can they work with you? If you say one thing today and another thing tomorrow, how are they supposed to know that your word means anything? How likely are they to sign agreements?
Another problem Romney had was with language. If you listened to what he said and how he said it, he sounded odd and at times seemed out of his element. He said some things that were awkward, some things that he didn’t really seem to have mastery of, and some things that were disingenuous. In the realm of the obvious (and didn’t need to be said) was when he described Medicaid as “a program for the poor”. Romney also kept referring to “bad guys” instead of using terms like “enemies” or describing who the specific people were that we had issues with. It’s almost as if he was talking down to the American people. One other thing that stood out to me was when he said we have “terrific soldiers”. That may be true, but who describes them like that?
He also kept referring to what’s happening in the Middle East as “tumult”. Over and over he used the same word. It’s a perfectly fine word to describe what’s happening, but you shouldn’t overuse it. He could have used words like “chaos”, “issues”, or “problems”. It’s also not a word that people normally use all the time. It made him sound a little out of touch. It also made him sound as if he had no other word to describe it. Like he was cramming for a test, that’s the one word he learned, and he didn’t know how else to say it.
That wasn’t the only time he sounded like he was just regurgitating something that he learned from the Wikipedia page on the topic. He also sounded that way when he talked about Pakistan. It sounded like he was explaining things on a very basic level as they were explained to him, as opposed to answering a question with knowledge and insight. It’s as if he wanted to sound like he knew what he was talking about, and he had to speak for a certain period of time to do so, so he just started mentioning things he knew related to the topic.
Some things he said just seemed completely ridiculous. When he described China, he said that China wants “the world to be free and open”. I don’t know anyone else who describes China like that, because if that’s what they want, they have a pretty odd way of showing it. Most people would describe China as an authoritarian government that wants to keep control over its people and protect its interests around the world, regardless of freedom and openness. They’ve gone out of their way to not be free and open.
Romney also talked about promoting human rights and specifically women’s rights in the international arena. These are laudable goals, but they do not seem to be his goals, at least not for his policy here in the US. He is an ardent opponent of women’s rights. He has opposed women’s right to an abortion. He has opposed insurance companies being required to provide coverage for contraception. Some of the things he said in the previous debate showed a paternalistic attitude toward women. He is also against other rights, specifically marriage equality.
One of Romney’s odd uses of language involved using one particular word in a particular way. It was subtle and easy to miss. A couple of times he referred to “Democrat Senators” instead of “Democratic Senators”. This usage of the word “Democrat” instead of “Democratic” as an adjective has a long history of being insulting to Democrats. It’s possible he didn’t mean to say it. It could have been an accident or, as mentioned in the Wikipedia article, it could just be force of habit. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect another reason. Mitt Romney has a credibility issue with the conservative wing of the Republican Party. He was a “moderate” for many years before becoming a “conservative”, and now it seems like he was trying to be a “moderate” again. (I put those words in quotes because at this point, I’m not sure how much he ever adhered to those particular points of view.) By using a term that is hated by Democrats and embraced by Republicans, I believe he was trying to signal to the base of the Republican Party that he is indeed one of them. Most people probably didn’t catch it, but for those who did, it was important. If this is why he used it, it would be a clear example of dog whistle politics.
He also spoke in ways that made him sound elitist. A couple of times he said, “When I’m president…”. It could just be trying to frame things positively for himself, and to get people comfortable with the idea of him as president. But I think it comes off as elitist. It’s awfully presumptive to assume that he’s going to be president. It conjures an image for me of someone who feels like he’s entitled to it. On its own, I don’t think that statement would engender that type of reaction, but given everything else we know about Romney, that’s what it makes me think of. Contrast it with how Obama approached the topic. He said, “And if I have the privilege of being your president for another four years…”. That’s a much humbler, more respectful, and less presumptuous way of handling it.
In contrast to Romney, Obama had a lot of really good statements. He had an obvious command of the issues. He was familiar with all of the topics and could talk about them in depth, with specificity, and with a sense of understanding and keen analysis. It was clear that he was the one with the experience.
Obama also delivered some powerful, funny lines. Everyone was talking about the “horses and bayonets” comment. It was a great way of making a point about Romney’s lack of familiarity with how the military works, and Obama’s understanding of the nuances of military policy. When he first delivered it, I didn’t realize it was prepared. In retrospect, it’s obvious that it had to be, but I thought his delivery was really good. A line Obama used to similar effect was, “I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy…” It was subtle, but effective. It reminded people who had the experience, and who didn’t.
Another great line that Obama said involved the idea that Romney was out of touch, a theme the Obama campaign has been emphasizing. This time it was because his policies were out of touch. Or, more specifically, out of date. Obama said:
But, Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.
Which makes sense when you think about it. Romney called Russia the biggest “geopolitical foe”. He’s against abortion and coverage for contraception. And he wants to roll back regulation on financial institutions. Putting them all together in that statement was a great way to encapsulate the idea.
While I think that the debate strayed into domestic issues for far too long, there was some good discussion. Obama said that after such a long time at war, it was time for “nation building here at home”. This was a great way to talk about how much the wars have cost us, how we could spend the money better, and also to talk about his domestic priorities.
Overall, it was clear to me that Obama won the debate. It was clear to many other people as well, because many polls showed that Obama won. This definitely helps Obama, but I’m not sure how much. I don’t think Romney did himself any favors with his performance. It gave Obama many chances to show how inexperienced Romney is in foreign affairs and to highlight how often he changes his positions. But for those who have been following the campaign, those things were already fairly obvious.
needsblogged 