The Debate

                                                                

Last night the third presidential debate was held. I don't know who won. In fact I don't know what constitutes winning.

This was the only one of the series I watched. I've avoided them up to this point but for some reason – one I can't really explain – I tuned in last night. I've ignored them for several reasons. First of all, having already made up my mind there wasn't much to be gained. Second was that I have better ways to waste my time because (third) I don't believe what either candidate is saying. During the “debate” the candidates delivered their well-prepared remarks – remarks intended as ones which would impress the undecided voters. Because they were designed to prove, by any means necessary, their speaker's superiority to the opposition, truth wasn't a major issue.ⁱ

Still it got a reasonably good audienceⁱⁱ and some minds seem to have been made up or changed – at least according to the polls.

So what did those viewers see? On what did they make their judgments? How did that relate to the candidates' “game plans?”ⁱⁱⁱ

Having discounted the specific messages of the debaters (which, I suspect, was the approach that many viewers took), it was hard not to use style as the deciding factor. One of the candidates chose^iv to present himself as “presidential” – in charge and forceful, indeed, argumentative. The other was more “laid back” – dignified but “above the fray.” The goal of the first was to convince voters that no petty dictator would take advantage of him in negotiations; the second had the assignment of portraying himself as cool, confident, and worthy of the trust and confidence of the people.

But I didn't believe either of them. Or, better, I didn't want to believe either. I can't imagine that behind closed doors, in a diplomatic setting, with no television cameras or audio feeds running, that a well-trained negotiator would keep telling his counterpart that he was wrong and that he should go check the record. And it doesn't seem likely that he would keep interrupting the positions of his opposite party, no matter how inaccurate he thought they were.

Nor would I be comfortable were my representative so unengaged that he looked bored when he was being attacked. I'd like to think that, when it was necessary, he would be forthright and forceful in his arguments.

In short, I suspect that with the accompaniment of trained diplomats and advisors, and out of the glare of the television studio, the styles of the two would be relatively similar. Both would defend the interests of our country as they see them politely, but with all tools available – no-holds-barred and with every option “on the table.”

And in that appraisal is the factor that I consider the most important: “as they see them.” Having reached the position of presidential candidate, I'm sure that both are sufficiently alert, arrogant, and ambitious to perform reasonably well in the position. And with a variety of advisors they'll get enough opinions to sort through. But the decisions they'll make will be based on their preconceived biases. Their choices will be in the best “interests of our country as they see them.”

For me, then, the ballot choice will be based on what they have said and done in the past. It will be founded on the times when they were not as vigorously running for office as now but were speaking and performing according to their biases. In all likelihood they'll revert to that approach once the campaign is over. ^v

The fact, though, that the event could affect many of the voters – something attested by post-debate comments and polls – suggests that some citizens took their words at face value, and their approaches at body value. I only hope that the assessments^vi of those voters ultimately conform to my biases.

 

i      Do we have more bayonets than in 1916? I've heard contrary answers from “fact checkers” but who cares – except for the fact that it was a Twitter moment (apparently one well prepared and searching for the opportunity to be used). Otherwise it was one that was totally irrelevant.

ii     Six and a half million viewers. It was the lowest of the series, but that's not a surprise because with previous debates the excitement was gone and because the electorate has relatively little interest in foreign policy – the subject of the debate. In addition, it was in competition with the concluding Major League playoff game and “Monday Night Football.”

iii    After all they were competing with other sporting events.

iv     Or was advised.

v      As George Santayana said (among other things) “Remembering the past gives power to the present.” Unfortunately we're prone to forget the past and lose the present – and future – to easy claims, even if they are without basis.

vi     Even if they were made irrationally.