My advice to Rubio for tomorrow night’s debate
Tomorrow, you say? There’s another debate already?
Yes, more’s the pity (I don’t like debates).
So I’m offering the following as advice to Marco Rubio for the debate. I hope he gets it (and if any of you knows how to reach someone high up in his campaign with the information, feel free to do it or let me know how to do it).
In fact, this information may prove useful to you, or to anyone faced with an argument where the ground keeps shifting and your find yourself playing a game of whack-a-mole and losing.
It’s based on some things I learned in school long, long ago. Till then, when I’d argued with people I’d often felt like I was swimming in a sea of mud. One moment we’d be talking about one thing, the next moment something else, then back and forth and back and forth. It seem unlikely that a conceptual distinction could help, but it sure helped me wade through that murky muck.
So, here’s the advice for how to avoid a trap like that in the future:
(1) Arguments can be about content (facts/events) or process (for example: tone, repetition, name-calling).
(2) In Saturday’s debate, Christie had no effective content rejoinder to Rubio’s point about Obama, so Christie switched to a process argument about Rubio’s style.
(3) When your opponent switches to a process argument, you must (a) recognize that’s what happened; and (b) respond directly and quickly with a comment exposing the game behind the process argument before returning to content. For example, Rubio might have said to Christie: “You’re criticizing my way of talking, but that’s to distract us from the fact that you haven’t responded to my point about Obama’s intentions, and that’s why I repeated myself.”
(4) Never let a process argument go unanswered, but then return quickly to content.
That’s it, folks.
It’s based on a lengthy and detailed analysis I’ve done of the Christie/Rubio dust-up in last week’s debate, blow by blow. The content/process dynamic was sharply revealed when I took a close look. One day soon I’ll get to posting my report on that longer and closer look—because people are still talking about what happened, and I have a different take on it than most. But I thought I’d keep this one short.
[ADDENDUM: I want to clarify one thing. My basic analysis of what happened with Rubio in that exchange with Christie is that Rubio got stuck in a content loop while, with mounting frustration, he kept trying to get Christie to respond on content about Obama. Meanwhile, Christie never answered on content and had switched to process. Rubio kept trying to hold Christie’s feet to the content fire and ignored Christie’s process accusations, to Rubio’s detriment.]
I think he is a reasonable guy and we could certainly do worse than elect him. However, I don’t think he is all that smart. I don’t mean stupid, and I certainly don’t think IQ is the main characteristic we should be looking for. Perhaps his thinking is fine and he’s just not quick on his feet. But I’m worried about his ability to grasp ideas.
Assistant Village Idiot:
I think he’s smart. Not as smart as Cruz (and not as experienced a debater), but who is? My analysis of what happened with Rubio is that he got stuck in a content loop trying to get Christie to respond on content about Obama. Meanwhile, Christie had switched to process, and while Rubio kept trying to hold Christie’s feet to the content fire he ignored Christie’s process accusations, to Rubio’s detriment.
“Tomorrow, you say? There’s another debate already?”
I’d rather pound a two foot section of rebar down the center of my spine with a sledge hammer.
It would be much less numbing.
Neo:
About that suggested rejoinder: “You’re criticizing my way of talking, but that’s to distract us from the fact that you haven’t responded to my point about Obama’s intentions, and that’s why I repeated myself.”
But what if Christie had just doubled-down and said something like, “Oh, come on, Marco, we all know you have a script and have to stick to it or you’re lost” etc.?
Ann:
Then stay with process, because Christie has, and say something like, “I will gladly stop saying it when you either accept or deny my point about Obama. Till then, I’ll consider your talking about my repetition to be a distraction because you have no answer. “
“(2) In Saturday’s debate, Christie had no effective content rejoinder to Rubio’s point about Obama, so Christie switched to a process argument about Rubio’s style.”
That’s true but not IMO as important as why Christie’s process argument about Rubio resonated with many voters.
Christie accused Rubio of having never had to be solely accountable for his decisions and, that is true. The primary job of a governor or President is to govern. The person on whose desk… the ‘buck’ stops. Christie’s implied (for those aware) point was that Rubio’s actions, after the Gang of Eight legislation blew up in his face, proved that he refuses accountability. Which disqualifies Rubio from the office he seeks.
That Christie had no answer to Rubio’s accurate characterization of Obama is irrelevant because Christie was not there to defend Obama.
Where did Christie indicate disagreement with Rubio’s point? He skipped over it because Obama’s actions have proven Rubio’s accusation about Obama. But Rubio’s point is only relevant with those in denial about Obama’s nature. Anyone not in denial, knows that Obama is a knave.
Ideally, a candidate is there to state his (or her) positions on the issues, defend his record and actions as needed and, point out why he believes himself to be more qualified than his competitors.
Even though most people could not articulate all of this, on a gut level people get it and because Christie’s process argument about Rubio was valid, it stuck and resonated.
Yes, that’s what I’d do. But at some point, that kind of back-and-forth has to end, and probably stopped by the debate moderator. Unfortunately, the one with the best cheap-shot usually wins in such an encounter.
My response was to Neo’s comment @4:25 p.m.
How about these —
(1) Don’t use the politician’s trick of answering the question you want to answer, instead of the question you were asked.
(2) Say, “Before I answer your question, I want to respond to something Mr. Trump said.”
(3) Don’t answer “Barak Obama is a knave! Barak Obama is a knave! Barak Obama is a knave!” to any question, whether or not it has any relevance. Or at least waiting, as Cato the Elder did, to put “Carthago delenda est” at the end of your speeches, not the beginning.
(4) Grown up, take it like a man. (I loved Ann Coulter’s headline, “New Jersey Man Slays Child!”)
Reagan’s “There you go again.” Perfect example of addressing process, and retaining back to content
I don’t have the time to go into it at the moment, but my longer piece (probably tomorrow) will explain more fully what I’m getting at. It doesn’t lend itself to summary,
However, I’ll just add here that Christie was doing the bobbin and weaving and evasion. That’s what I learned from the transcript. Christie’s ploy was, however, successful, because Rubio didn’t address the process argument but instead focused on content and repeated himself. Had he exposed the process, called Christie on Christie’s failure to answer with content, and then moved on, I think it would have helped him.
I will add that I was very surprised when I read the transcript. Listening to and watching something in real time, quickly, gives one impression. Reading it gives another. Listening can be deceptive, but debates can and do turn on those initial perceptions, as this one did.
Lee:
Exactly why that was a brilliant rejoinder of Reagan’s.
If you want to see the unbeatable debate scheme of all time, here it is: The Gish Gallup”. It allowed a Creationist to claim he won every debate against every scientist who had the courage to face him.
It consists of only three tactics:
1) pepper your opponent with one-line criticisms of his positions, no matter how ridiculous, non-germane, or nonsensical, because it will take far longer to rebut the moronic premises of the question than is available
2) your opponent will have no time to question your beliefs
3) hand pick the audience
Christie’s point, as I got it was, that Rubio is just like Obama – inexperienced – and that’s why Obama has made such a hash of things. Rubio was trying to make the point that the problems Obama has created were not the result of inexperience.
Rubio might have asked Christie why he thought the bad economic results and seemingly inept foreign policy were the result of inexperience and not purposeful on Obama’s part. That would have at least been an attempt to force Christie to address the content. It also would have exposed more fully Rubio’s thesis.
I’m not at all surprised that this back and forth was totally misinterpreted by so many because there has always been the question of: “Is Obama a fool (inexperienced and unknowledgeable) or a knave (intentionally pursuing polices that are hurting the U.S.)?” It has been a major part of many discussions on this blog. People of good intentions come down on both sides and, sometimes, the verdict is fool AND knave.
IMO, Christie has pushed the inexperienced and unknowledgeable line because he (1) believes it, and (2) it gives him a talking point to use against the two first term Senators. Whenever Rubio or Cruz would repeat a talking point that seemed too slick, Christie would pounce. Remember when Rubio and Cruz got into an exchange over the fine points of legislation (comprehensive immigration reform) they had worked on, Christie would come out with an accusation of, “See folks, that’s what they do in the Senate, talk. When you’re a governor you have to make decisions and act.” That was his prosecutor’s instinct, to go for the inexperienced, all talk, no action meme. Unfortunately for Rubio, as Neo points out, it worked in the New Hampshire debate because Rubio seemed too robotic in using his same talking point several times. It addressed content that not many people watching recognized. They only saw it as weak and repetitive.
Carefully reading the transcript allows such insights, but most people, in the heat of debate, are unaware of the content versus process issue. Cruz probably recognizes such, but Rubio needs to put it in his tool kit. I suspect he is going to be attacked along the same lines on Saturday night.
“Christie’s ploy was, however, successful, because Rubio didn’t address the process argument but instead focused on content and repeated himself.”
Christie’s ploy was successful partly because Rubio didn’t address the process argument and instead focused on content and repeated himself but mostly because Christie’s charge resonated with people. Truth resonates with those able to discern it.
Have you ever heard Cruz respond to questions about Global Warming? I’ve heard him three times and it’s the same response, almost verbatim. To paraphrase: “I believe in following the science. I am the son of scientists. The science says the planet hasn’t warmed in nearly two decades.” I don’t think anyone here would argue that Cruz isn’t very smart. Christie himself lies in wait for a chance to trot out the “they’re just senators, I’m a governor” shtick. They all have canned responses. It’s just unfortunate for Rubio that he used the same one three times on one night.
Arlow,
That’s true. Speaking extemporaneously is, for a politician, exceedingly dangerous. The ability to think quickly and being really grounded in all the issues, while also able to speak succinctly (TV sound bites) is a very high bar indeed. I know I couldn’t do it.
Geoffrey Britain:
I think you are naive if you think truth resonates. If it did, demagoguery and sophistry would not work.
A lie gets halfway round the world before the truth has a chance to get its boots on.
Funny thing, Rubio ‘s truth about Obama didn’t seem to resonate. And a lot of Obama’s lies do.
I agree with everything neo has said, but in the end, although the exchange hurt Rubio, it didn’t help Christie and he is now out.
IMO, tomorrow night’s fireworks will be between Trump and Cruz. Trump has been going after Cruz as a “liar”. I have a feeling that Cruz will be more prepared in this debate than Rubio was, but we’ll see. It should be interesting.
Have you ever heard Cruz respond to questions about Global Warming? I’ve heard him three times and it’s the same response, almost verbatim. To paraphrase: “I believe in following the science. I am the son of scientists. The science says the planet hasn’t warmed in nearly two decades.”
I’d not heard of that position of his before. Of the remaining Republican candidates, is Cruz the only one who denies there’s any climate change? I think Trump once did, but has softened that position recently.
Ann,
Who said anything about “denying any climate change”?
But more to the point, I’ve looked back at some of the clips and realize I may have overstated my case. It wasn’t quite verbatim, but he hits the same main points. Here are a few examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0UJ_Sc0Udk&feature=youtu.be&t=3m30s
https://youtu.be/aoMIq50uc5k
https://youtu.be/J_xVWfGjk0o
Arlow:
I took that “The science says the planet hasn’t warmed in nearly two decades,” as meaning that. Incorrect inference on my part?
It is incorrect to say that Cruz is denying “climate change.” What he should say but unfortunately doesn’t say in any of the vids is, “Oh, yes, the climate is changing. It always has. What the data and science don’t show is that it is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. There is some weak evidence that burning fossil fuels may have some mild influence on the climate. But, as of now, there is no solid proof.”
The question, “Do you deny climate change,” is a straw man. It is so broad as to be without meaning. The pertinent argument is over whether or not the human use of fossil fuels has any effect on climate change.
neo,
No offense but if you think I was stating that truth resonates with everyone or even most, then you’re being obtuse. The key qualifier was, “with those able to discern it”.
Churchill also said that all you had to do was have a 5 minute conversation with the average voter to realize democracy’s fatal flaw. Which is WHY a lie gets halfway round the world before the truth gets its pants on.
Many people are very smart but most people aren’t that sharp. What’s worse, smarts and wisdom are entirely different qualities and wisdom is much rarer than smarts.
Truth resonates with relatively few people because truth and wisdom are two sides of the same coin. Whereas lies resonate with most people because widely accepted lies are ones that assure people of what they want to believe.
If wisdom were the norm, in our current circumstances, 95% of republicans, conservatives and libertarians would be supporting Ted Cruz and the Democrat party wouldn’t exist. We have a two party system because people can’t agree about the truth. Human beings can’t agree because our brains are not yet integrated, i.e. logic + intuition, instead we have deductive vs inductive.
Whether the coming evolutionary ‘event’ is labeled “the singularity” or “the rapture”, the ‘awakening’ that the Buddha experienced awaits humanity and then, we shall know the truth and, it will set us free. Lots of prophets have predicted this, we just have to be able to discern it.
J.J.,
Brilliant summation.
Yes, Ann. Incorrect inference.
G,B., Ah shucks was it that good? Thanks! 🙂
Geoffrey Britain:
But this is what you actually wrote:
But if you actually believe what you wrote later—i.e. “Truth resonates with relatively few people,” then it would stand to reason that Christie’s charge resonated with very few people. I think we’re all in agreement that Christie’s charge resonated with a great many people. So what on earth did you mean by what you wrote? I was interpreting it in the only logical way: that you meant that Christie’s charge resonated with a lot of people because it was the truth.
Otherwise, if you thought (a) Christie’s charge resonated with people because it was the truth; AND (b) truth resonates with very few people—one would have to conclude that you also thought his charge resonated with very few people. Since that’s apparently not what you thought (we all seem to be agreeing that his charge resonated with a lot of people), one could only conclude you meant that (a) Christie’s charge resonated with people because it was the truth, AND (b) truth tends to resonate with a lot of people.
I really don’t think I was the obtuse one here. Unless I was supposed to intuit that you meant Christie’s charge was the truth but resonated with very few people?
Geoffrey Britain:
I just checked what you wrote again and I see that the entire quote was:
So you were actually explicitly saying that Christie’s ploy was successful. I can only interpret that to mean that meant that a lot of believed believed it. So you were saying a lot of people believed Christie’s charge (“it was successful”), the charge “resonated with people,” and “truth resonates with people able to discern it.”
And somehow I’m supposed to take from all of that that you also believe that “Truth resonates with relatively few people”? And you call me “obtuse” for not figuring out how to come to that conclusion? By the way, “obtuse” is defined as “annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.”
neo
I apologize for any lack of clarity. People consciously recognizing the truth are few. People sensing the truth at a subconscious level are much more common. That ‘sensing’ is at a ‘gut’ level, not something most can easily articulate or expound upon.
The latter circumstance is what I meant in Christie’s charge resonating with people. It’s our ‘filters’, preconceptions and assumed dogmas, that prevent us from consciously recognizing the truth when we hear it.
Another opinion from Dilbert’s creator.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/139172970011/policies-and-name-recognition-trump-persuasion
PatD:
Lowe is a bad choice because he has this little peccadillo about a video with two underage prostitutes in his past. Not even Trump would survive that.
Not sure what you’re getting at in the second part. Are you saying that if Trump had Kasich’ policies, Trump would still be leading or Kasich would be with Trump’s? It is the policies that are generating Trump’s fanatical following, plus his in-your-face celebrity, and no conservatives or angry middle class Americans would be following him with Kasich’s ideas.
There is a third alternatuve – Cruz’ policies are pretty much the same as Trump’s but without the bombast, demagoguery or foul language, and he would attempt to enact them within the framework of the Constitution.
If Trump would never have declared, or drops out from boredom, Cruz would be the logical choice of Trump’s supporters, only Cruz would encourage them to be honorable, honest and respectful in advocating for him.
Geoffrey Britain:
No need to apologize for lack of clarity.
It wasn’t your lack of clarity that frustrated me, it was your calling me “obtuse” for not understanding what you thought you were saying, even though you were saying the exact opposite (whether you meant it or not).
You are ordinarily a logical and thoughtful person, whether I agree with you or not about what you’re saying. So this seemed very out of character for you.
In your most recent comment, you write, “People consciously recognizing the truth are few. People sensing the truth at a subconscious level are much more common.” While I agree with both those statements, I would add a third, “And people sensing what they believe is the truth and yet being fooled by demagoguery, lies, wishful thinking, or their own misjudgment is more common still.”
So what people feel in their guts tells you very little about each episode. We must evaluate everything on our own, and try to be as objective as possible.
@geokstr:
I was quoting Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert. He looks at things a little differently.
If the politicians on the GOP side exchanged their policy positions, Adams believes the polls would not change. It is not the policies that define the politician to the voter, but rather, the persona they project.
neo,
“And people sensing what they believe is the truth and yet being fooled by demagoguery, lies, wishful thinking, or their own misjudgment is more common still.”
No doubt that is true. When people believe to be true what is not, it is their erroneous preconceptions that lead to that error in perception. Which is why, when challenged by reason and/or fact, a willingness to place the truth above ideology or any dogma is essential to growth.