The New Neo

First let’s talk about what happened last night.

I didn’t watch the debate, because – as I’ve said many times – I hate presidential debates and they make me very nervous as well. In this case, I expected Trump to do fairly poorly. I’ve watched clips of him in previous presidential debates, as well as watching some of the Republican primary debates during the 2016 campaign, and I’ve never thought he did well in any debate. It’s just not his thing at all.

On the other hand, although many people expected a giggly, airheaded Harris, I did not. As I’ve said before, she’s not stupid, although sometimes she sounds inarticulate and spacey, and she’s usually not direct in her answers. But for last night she was going to prepare within an inch of her life. Plus, she’s a lawyer with some courtroom experience, and almost all lawyers know how to debate, and those who have been courtroom lawyers must know ways to prevent themselves from succumbing to nervousness when needing to perform.

Because of the unusual schedule of this campaign season, there is no plan for the ordinary three presidential debates with the candidate (Biden no longer counts). That means much more was riding on this particular debate – way too much, because it may be the only showdown between Trump and Harris.

But even though I didn’t watch it, I got a sense that things weren’t going well for Trump because about twenty minutes into the debate I got a text from a relative that hinted at it. When I went to other blogs to look at comments there, I saw that most people were saying that Harris was doing rather well and that Trump was being goaded and getting angry; and besides, that the moderators were extremely biased. This seems to be the basic perception on the right, although some say it wasn’t all that bad and Harris didn’t score points on the “likability” factor.

Later I watched a few clips and was surprised that I was more in the “it wasn’t all that bad for Trump” camp. Obviously, what I saw was selected, and perhaps involved his better moments. But not only was he not that bad but Harris was mouthing meaningless and vague platitudes. In the clips I heard, she didn’t sound ditsy but she actually said nothing of any substance and didn’t answer the questions. It was like language as smokescreen.

The whole thing reminds me (not that I needed reminding) of why I detest debates and have detested them almost as far back as I can remember. Maybe the only one I was okay about was the very first I ever saw (and I believe it was the first televised presidential debate), Kennedy/Nixon. Did I really watch it on TV, or have I just seen so many photos and clips that I think I watched it? No matter. I was very young and already was biased towards Kennedy, since I came from a family of Democrats. But even then there was something about the format that seemed forced and phony to me and caused a sense of vague unease.

And come to think of it, I can’t remember the next debate I watched. Maybe a few minutes here and there of Reagan? Same for Clinton? I actually don’t remember watching any debates until 2004. And looking 2004 up just now, I discover that my third blog post, just a couple of days after I began writing this blog, was about a 2004 presidential debate between Kerry and Bush. Here’s the link, and I see from the content that I’m nothing if not consistent. The beginning of the post goes like this:

“When is a debate not a debate?”

When it’s a Presidential debate.

I’ve always hated these things, from the Kennedy/Nixon days. They make me nervous and they perplex me. Debating seems to be a skill that has nothing–absolutely nothing–to do with being an effective president. And of course these debates have nothing in common with actual debates, which are rhetorical contests with certain rules and regulations and have nothing whatsoever to do with action and decisionmaking, and everything to do with argument.

It’s twenty years later and I feel exactly the same.

I ended the post back then with this paragraph:

Bush seemed to be angry, though–not visibly, but underneath, and it made him rush his sentences more than usual, especially in the first half of the debate, and it made him seem confused and forced. And while it seems to me that Bush will be evaluated on his job performance by most people, I think this anger is a wild card in people’s reactions. Those who are annoyed by Kerry will probably wonder that Bush wasn’t even angrier, and will give Bush points for forbearance. But those who find Kerry okay will wonder what got Bush’s goat. As for me, I think I know.

The large question is : why would I (or anyone) care much about how good a presidential candidate is at debating? To me, it’s a very specific and lawyerly skill, but one that doesn’t translate into right action. And it’s decisive action, good judgment, and leadership we want in a president, as well as the ability to negotiate and persuade, using force when necessary and compromise when necessary.

Debates also can turn on things like charm and physical attractiveness, and/or the ability to get in a sound bite or a memorable phrase. And although I like a good turn of phrase as well as anyone (Churchill and Lincoln were masters, for example), there haven’t been many memorable candidates of that sort in a long long time.

But perhaps worst of all is the role of the press. They are given far too much opportunity to put their thumbs on the scale, and they are adept at doing it and more than willing to do it to help the Democrat. Always to help the Democrat. The first time I realized the strength of their ability to do that and their shamelessness about it was in the second debate in 2012 between Romney and Obama, the one in which Candy Crowley was a major player. I wasn’t watching that one, either, but I was listening to it on the radio in real time in a car because I was with someone who wanted to hear it. Later, I went back and studied the transcript and the clips and I was flabbergasted. Not only had Crowley intervened to help Obama and back up what he was saying, but it turns out that he was wrong (or lying) and that she was wrong (or lying).

I wrote several long posts analyzing the whole thing because I was so incensed; you can find the main posts here and here. I came to feel, after closely studying what had happened, that it was even possible that it was a pre-arranged setup between Crowley and Obama.

And Romney was not even Trump, of course – that is, he was not as hated by the MSM. But nevertheless they wanted to make sure he would not become president, and coverage of him was quite vile and of the “binders of women” type. Now the media and the Democrats are far more desperate to stop Trump from getting elected again. As for Trump, he can often be his own enemy. I would say “his own worst enemy,” except Trump has so many extremely passionate and ruthless enemies that the competition is fierce.

Then there is the question of how much presidential debates actually affect people’s voting decisions. Darned if I know. They have never affected mine, but the same isn’t necessarily true for most people. I have little doubt that they don’t change the votes of the committed voters for either candidate, but what of the undecideds? What are they looking for, what matters most to them, and did they find it last night?