For one glorious year, I was the debate coach at Cass City High School in Michigan. Way before the Internet, the only research tools we had were the books and magazines we could gather ourselves. Other schools with larger teams and budgets could out-research us, so we had to find a different way to win.
Debates were often about how many quotes or researched references a debater could squeeze in in the time allotted. It almost became a scorecard, so if they had 7 quotes supporting their side, you just had to rapid-fire 8 quotes to beat them. It often involved speaking fast and delivering the most quotes per minute. It didn't make for an interesting or even informative contest.
So, my debaters learned to be more communicative, colorful if you will, with their language. We concentrated on the non-verbal part and our rhetorical flourishes. I had some highly intellectual debaters who also knew how to give a good speech with a flourish. We didn't win the state, but we were good enough to finish third, the most successful finish the school had ever had to that date.
But we didn't lie to do it. We didn't make up facts. We stuck to the truth, and we supported our more flourishing rhetoric.
It was hard enough keeping academic debates on course. You can imagine what political ones are like. They're not scored based on facts and policy. I wish that was true, but it is not.
They are almost always judged by single moments. Maybe that's the most people can absorb.
It might be physical, like Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow. George HW Bush's distracted impatience in checking his watch, Al Gore's sighing, Trump stalking behind Hilary as if he were the Frankenstein Monster.
It might be a verbal slip-up like Ford saying Poland wasn't under Soviet domination. Or Dukakis's cold-blooded answer to whether he'd want the death penalty for someone who murdered his wife.
Often it is a one-liner like Reagan's turning the age question on its head with Mondale, and the snippy little "There you go again" to Jimmy Carter.
What can't I show? Where debates were won on facts and policy.
So, what will happen tonight? In this extraordinarily early debate?
Most things favor the President of the United States over the convicted felon. Biden is intelligent and quick-witted. Yes, he's 81, but other than cheap fakes on Fox, he's shown little sign of cognitive decline. That said, the slightest slip-up will be amplified to the max by right-wing media.
On the other hand, there is little dispute that Trump IS in serious cognitive decline. If you don't think so, you haven't listened to some of his most recent statements. The battery/shark story is just the tip of the disintegrating iceberg.
Trump has advantages. He can lie his ass off, and he will get away with zero policy statements. He'll verbally attack Biden again and again. He can be as incoherent as he wants as long as he gets off a memorable one-liner.
And, yes, I know the candidates will be muted if they go over their time or if it's not their turn. What I don't know is how well the other candidate can hear them when their opponent's mic is off. I fear that Biden will still hear him even if we can't clearly, and it will distract him while he tries to answer. The resulting confusion and irritation may come across, and people will not reason it out because Trump is a boorish pig who won't shut up, but that Biden is OLD.
Biden is the better debater, but that is no guarantee. And I am very worried because the election of Trump does mean the end of the Democratic experiment. Check out Project 2025.
Oh, the terror of the superficial decider.
Most of you will see this after the debate, I reckon. My blog, when seen it all, seems to be delayed by Facebook.
So, I will try to add an update to this.
If I can stomach it.
UPDATE:
No, I can't stomach the update, but some people are anticipating so...
PHYSICAL/OPTICS: an unmitigated disaster for Joe Biden. Yes, he had a cold. Yes, he got stronger as the Debate went on. But Biden had one job to do - to prove that his age didn't matter, that he had age-defying stamina. He failed in that job - spectacularly.
VERBAL SLIP-UPS: I can't think of any. I'll have to hear more reviews. Biden tried to spit out too many facts, and he got lost in some of the numbers, but he said nothing fatally stupid. All Trump said were lies and nonsense, but I don't know one that stood out. I guess when you're spinning out verbal diarrhea, it's hard to pick out the one that stinks the most.
ONE-LINERS: They are few and far between. I liked Biden's line about Trump: He has the morals of an alleycat.
FACTS/POLICY: This was a landslide in favor of Biden. Biden at least tried to answer the questions asked, and I love what Biden has accomplished and the direction he wants to take the country. Trump answered NO POLICY QUESTIONS and instead made everything about him. He spent considerable time demonizing migrants with monstrous lies that would make Hitler and Goebbels blush with pride.
However, as this blog and other sources have made clear, policy is irrelevant in a debate. It's the most important part of the debate, but it's the least absorbed part of a debate. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is about optics.
No comments:
Post a Comment