Why Smart Talkers Lose Debates and How Obama Can Beat McCain Anyway
Democrats like Barack Obama have historically lost presidential debates because they made two fundamental mistakes: First, they have treated the debates as if they were high school or college debates, which are won primarily on the merits of the arguments and volume of evidence presented.
Second, relatedly, they seem to think that appearing smarter than your opponent is a winning strategy, whereas Republicans understand and have repeatedly demonstrated it is a losing strategy. This fact was very well understood by the masters of persuasive language from ancient Greece and Rome through Elizabethans like Shakespeare and by skilled debaters like Lincoln and Churchill, as we will see.
Debates are typically won by the candidate who presents the most compelling and persuasive character. If I can convince you I'm an honest, straight talker, you'll believe what else I say. If you can't, you won't.
Debates are not usually won on factual or policy merits, in part because voters aren't in a position to adjudicate sometimes subtle differences between complex programs -- what exactly was the difference between Clinton's health care plan and Obama's? -- and because the late deciding independent voters are, perhaps wisely, skeptical that politicians are going to be able to deliver on their promises anyway. In any case, if I don't convince you I'm honest, my stated policy positions can't possibly matter.
Debates are also won by whichever side is best able to portray their opponent's performance as matching or vindicating the negative narrative they have been working so hard to push on the public and the media. Needless to say, if you don't have such a counterpunching narrative with which to define your opponent, you have no chance of winning the debate and the best you can hope for is to draw.
The bad news for Obama is that he has fallen [run willingly?] into the standard trap of appearing to be an over-educated smart talker. But the good news is that the supposed straight-talker John McCain has begun to be treated in the media (and by the Obama campaign) as the serial liar he has become -- and at the same time, he is clearly one of the worst candidates at maintaining message discipline while speaking off-the-cuff in modern GOP history. At least in one respect, John McCain is no George Bush.
Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, was discovered and developed by the Greeks and Romans in part to help them win debates, to help them appear honest and genuine, so it follows that modern debates are also won by those who are better at using the strategies and tactics of rhetoric.
The great task for Obama in the debates -- the task for anyone who wants to win a nationally televised debate -- is to master rhetoric without appearing to be a master rhetorician. Since Democrats from Jimmy Carter to Mike Dukakis to Al Gore and John Kerry -- and their strategists, message makers, and debate coaches -- seem painfully unaware of what Republicans (and Bill Clinton) have long understood, I will focus on the rhetoric of debate in a series of posts.
The rest of this post will explain why (those who appear to be) straight talkers beat smart talkers every time, ending with a discussion of the 2004 election. Part 2 will focus on how the Bush team in 2000 used the first debate to finish framing Gore with the negative extended metaphor they had crafted for him. Part 3 will offer some specific tactics and strategies for Obama.
A HISTORY OF FAKING STRAIGHT TALK
A core strategy of rhetoric is to avoid seeming like a smarty-pants, to avoid appearing like Carter Dukakis Gore Kerry a highly educated (i.e. elite), wonkish speaker, but rather a plainspoken man of the people.
Shakespeare -- a master of rhetoric who knew more than 200 figures of speech like all middle-class Elizabethans (why do you think they called it grammar school?) -- understood that very well. That's why he has Mark Antony say in one of the great debate speeches of all time, his famous "Friends, Romans, countrymen" response to Brutus in the Roman Forum: "I am no orator, as Brutus is, But -- as you know me all -- a plain blunt man."
Is it coincidental that the only ones to use the word "rhetoric" in the 2004 presidential debates were George Bush and Dick Cheney? In the Vice Presidential Debate, Cheney said to his Democratic rival, Senator John Edwards, "Your rhetoric, Senator, would be a lot more credible if there was a record to back it up." In the final debate, Bush twice repeated almost verbatim the same accusation about Kerry: "His rhetoric doesn't match his record," and again "His record in the United States Senate does not match his rhetoric." This was only a small salvo in the Bush team's war on Kerry's language.
It is a mark of wily orators that they accuse their opponents of being rhetoricians. Winston Churchill, who wrote a treatise on the use of rhetoric in political speech at the age of 22, himself once opened an attack on his political opponents, saying "These professional intellectuals who revel in decimals and polysyllables...."
Returning to the Roman Forum, Marc Antony says
For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech,
To stir men's blood: I only speak right on;
I tell you that which you yourselves do know;
So Antony is a man of the people, just reminding them of what they already know. Antony was, in fact, a patrician, like Bush. Indeed, Antony was a student of rhetoric, but his repeated use of one-syllable words lends credibility to his blunt sincerity. It is a mark of first-rate orators that they deny eloquence
Lincoln was a "plain homespun" speaker, or so goes the legend, a legend he himself worked hard to create. In a December 1859 autobiographical sketch provided to a Pennsylvania newspaper, Lincoln explained how his father grew up "literally without education." Lincoln described growing up in "a wild region, with many bears and other wild animals still in the woods.... There were some schools, so called." He offers one especially colorful spin: "If a stranger supposed to understand Latin, happened to sojourn in the neighborhood, he was looked upon as a wizard." No fancy talkers here. Lincoln modestly explains the result of the little schooling he had: "Of course when I came of age, I did not know much." And after that, "I have not been to school since. The little advance I now have upon this store of education, I have picked up from time to time under the pressure of necessity." All this from a man who in the previous year had proven himself to be one of America's great orators in the Lincoln-Douglas debates and who during the course of his presidency would demonstrate the most sophisticated grasp of rhetoric of any U.S. President, before or since.
Lincoln opened his masterful February 1859 Cooper Union speech echoing Shakespeare's Antony: "The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them." (In Antony's own words, "I only speak right on; I tell you that which you yourselves do know.") These are the words of a man who had memorized Shakespeare from William Scott's Lessons in Elocution, a treatise that included Antony's famous speech.
The master orator who denies eloquence and rhetoric was such a commonplace by the sixteenth century that Shakespeare resorted to it repeatedly. Consider his King Henry V, a master of oratory, who delivered the most famous pre-battle speech in the English-language:
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother...
After the British triumph at Agincourt, King Henry V woos Katherine, the daughter of the French king. Yet, even though Kate's hand was one of Henry's conditions for peace, the master of rhetoric still treats us to his tricks.
When Kate says she doesn't speak English well, Henry says he's glad, "for, if thou couldst, thou wouldst find me such a plain king that thou wouldst think I had sold my farm to buy my crown." He's just like a farmer, a man of the people. He adds, "But, before God, Kate, I cannot look greenly nor gasp out my eloquence, nor I have no cunning in protestation; only downright oaths, which I never use till urged, nor never break for urging." Like Antony, he disingenuously denies eloquence. The reason orators use this trick: Being blunt and ineloquent means they must be honest and steadfast.
Here is Bush in his Orlando campaign speech on October 30, 2004:
Sometimes I'm a little too blunt-I get that from my mother. [Huge Cheers] Sometimes I mangle the English language-I get that from my dad. [Laughter and Cheers]. But you always know where I stand. You can't say that for my opponent....
For a blunt language-mangler, that's surprisingly old-school -- very old school -- rhetoric.
Henry urges Kate to "take a fellow of plain and uncoin'd constancy, for he perforce must do thee right, because he hath not the gift to woo in other places." Because he is not a clever orator, he must be an honest and constant man. Then Henry compares himself to an imaginary rival: "For these fellows of infinite tongue, that can rhyme themselves into ladies' favours, they do always reason themselves out again." In short, the other guys are flip-floppers and liars. They talk smarter than I do, but that's exactly why you can't trust them.
Consider Bush's stump speech in Wilmington, Ohio the day before the election, discussing his September 2003 request for $87 billion in Iraq war funding and Kerry's vote: "And then he entered the flip-flop Hall of Fame by saying this: 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion right before I voted against it.' I haven't spent a lot of time in the coffee shops around here, but I bet you a lot of people don't talk that way." In Burgettstown, two hours later he said, "I doubt many people in western Pennsylvania talk that way." In Sioux City, Iowa, a few hours later, "I haven't spent much time in the coffee shops around here, but I feel pretty comfortable in predicting that not many people talk like that in Sioux land." And in Albuquerque, he said, "I have spent a lot of time in New Mexico, and I've never heard a person talk that way."
Sarah Palin, in her stump speech, makes an almost identical criticism of Obama: "We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco." He is not one of us. He's two faced. Yes, it may seem laughable coming from the Palin-McCain team, but even laughable works when it uses the tools of rhetoric -- Palin here is using antithesis -- placing words or ideas in contrast or opposition, one of Lincoln's favorite rhetorical devices: "with malice toward none; with charity for all." And she is placing Obama into a very old narrative about liars, flip-floppers, and Democratic candidates for President.
Kerry's self-defining and self-defaming quote--"I actually did vote for the $87 billion right before I voted against it."--has the powerful elements of eloquence. Sadly for Kerry, this is the precise reason it stuck in the mind. It has the repetition and sound of two memorable figures found in famous political quotes, antithesis, ("voted for" versus "voted against"), and chiasmus, words repeated in inverse order (in this case, "I .. vote for" and "before I voted"). Little wonder it was ripe for exploitation through repetition and sarcasm.
Why did Kerry flip flop? Bush had a simple answer. The President told every audience that Kerry's most revealing explanation "was when he said, the whole thing was a complicated matter. My fellow Americans, there is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat." Rhetoric retains the power to move real people. In a 2005 post-election analysis, Journalism professor Danner quotes one Dr. Richardson-Pinto saying to him at Bush's Orlando rally: "It doesn't matter if the man [Kerry] can talk. Sometimes, when someone's real articulate, you can't trust what he says, you know?" And Richardson-Pinto is a doctor, someone whose credibility depends on being articulate.
The President has everything down cold that we expect from a master rhetorician: The repeated simple words, the repeated phrases, and the message that his opponent is inconsistent and inconstant because he's too clever by half and doesn't talk the way you and I do. Yet at the same time, Bush manages to leave the impression that he himself is rather slow and inarticulate. Ironically, the (all-too-many) Democrats who attacked Bush as being stupid merely gave him a free pass on all his lying and made him seem more genuine and credible to many voters
This stuff works. To paraphrase the slogan from the last Democrat to win the presidency, "It's the rhetoric, stupid." And speaking of that famous slogan, it was not merely a vow to focus laser-like on the economy, but a message to the public that Clinton the candidate was definitely not one of those too-smart fellows of infinite tongue.
Indeed, Clinton had said in the speech announcing his candidacy for President on October 3, 1991 in Little Rock, Arkansas that "We need more than photo ops and empty rhetoric." In words that would make rhetorician proud, he vowed: "This must be a campaign of ideas, not slogans... I'm going to tell you in plain language what I intend to do as President." This was a dig at his opponent, George H. W. Bush, a patrician politician who was not known for his command of the English language but who had not figured out how to turn that to his advantage, as his son has. Still, like most successful politicians, Clinton was a master of slogans, including "It's the economy's stupid" and "mend it don't end it" and "don't ask, don't tell."
So far, Obama hasn't come close to figuring out how to sound like a man of the people. The only good news for him is that McCain's "straight talk express" has completely derailed, and the Arizonan has been exposed as a serial liar. I will address the consequences of that for both candidates in Part 2.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This article is probably right, but underneath it lurks the culture war.
After Obama wins, if he wins, it's time the progressive left starting to seize, rather than shy away from, the culture war.
It's time to start asserting forcefully and unapologetically that the best and the brightest should run things. Elitist? Too bad. The right has asserted forcefully and unapologetically that the richest and most highborn should run things for awhile. Now they seem to assert that the folksiest and most down-home should run things.
In either case, though, progressives just cave in to and accept the now-taken-
The left makes the mistake of believing that if we first win some elections, then we can start leading the people. Maybe it's the other way around--- lead the people. And then we might start winning some elections again.
Yes! When Obama wins, my hope is a huge effort for education. I think the dumbing down of important privileges (like selecting our nation's president and vice-president) is tragic. When we fail to educate people to think critically, we get leaders who avoid the press, who out and out lie, who exemplify greed and self-interest . . . When we attach words like "elitist" to the well-educated, we seem to allow the idea that "dumb and dumber" is somehow better. So the progressive left has to stand up and say that it really is okay to think through and analyze and use critical thinking skills to solve problems. We have to reclaim that pride in being able to think and lead.
You've nailed it. Looking forward to Part 2. Hope they read this at Debate Prep.
Granted, simple is better. But it's 10-word answers that the voting public wants to hear in response to complex questions these days. Nuanced and well-thought answers have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Sad.
See Leah McElrath Renna's Profile
Yes, yes, yes and yes!
If we say to yourselves "Did Obama seem like he dumbed himself down during the debate" I gurantee you he won.
If O is practicing ANYTHING during his debate prep I hope it is this. Being smarter does not mean you win, being a man of the people does.
So in other words, dumb down for Americans.
How sad.
Yep. It's a debate, not a college lecture. It's about style and relating to people, and as this post points out, it's not new to contemporary America. There's a long tradition--across cultures--of disparaging rhetoric--in order to rhetorically triumph.
WE HAD BETTER START WANTING DETAILS STARTING WITH THIS BAILOUT. "THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS"
And.......
If she should win it's because she is WHITE! Don't you know it? It was her kitchen sink tactics that made lots of voters turning away from her. If Obama should lose, it's because he is black and he can't attack people below the belt which is unfortunate because we should choose President with intellect, integrity, good judgment and put his country before his own ambition. If Obama wants to win the debate, he has to keep his answer SHORT, call a liar LIAR, and speak with PASSION.
McCAIN-PALIN: COUNTRY LAST, RECKLESS JUDGMENT, LIES, SECRECY, CRONYISM.
Out played. Out witted. Out lasted. May I introduce the nest POTUS? Barack Obama.
Hillary would be losing to McCain by twenty points right now, but for very different reasons.
If Hillary was the nominee she probably would have picked a running mate like either Dodd or Biden, or possibly someone from the midwest like Bayh, or from the south like Sam Nunn. She would do that because she would be leading in most of the Democratic states in the north and the far west, but not by as much as you think and the red states would be bright red.
Why? Because McCain would not have picked Palin, he would have picked Romney someone with real executive experience. It would have been a perfect fit during this economic downturn, which has happened independent of the campaign.
Hillary and her senatorial or other government running mate --even if it was a governor--would be hammered for having very little wall street or market experience. With the tickets long experience in Washington, especially in the White House, they would be hammered with responsibility for being part of the trade and deregulation policies that brought on this crisis. There would be reminders of whitewater, and other underhanded deals, no matter how bogus.
Only McCain/Romney can right this faultering economy.
Clinton/-------- would be down several points right now. Considering the current climate I think she would be closer to losing than winning. Ironically, Palin may make the difference for the Democrats this time.
Not to mention that we would be hearing about how President Clinton signed most of the deregulation legislation that went through.
And we would relive every single scandal from that administration. I promise that the Rove machine was chomping at the bit to get at her, and would have quickly dismantled the "populist" image that she was creating out of thin air toward the end of the primaries. There's no guarantee that she would have maintained those people who voted for her in the primaries, especially since she didn't have the ground operation that Obama has.
Stop living in an alternative universe. These are our presidential candidates. Who do you really think will do a better job for our country? I will never understand why Democrats don't coalesce behind their presidential candidates. Do you know how many Republicans truly dislike McCain, including most of the people who ran against him in the primaries? And except for a few pundits, they have all fallen in line, never suggesting that at this moment, Romney or Huckabee might very well be doing better.
This country was founded by an elite group of well-educated men. Why do we expect it to be run (well) by a group of less intelligent people? Perhaps if we went back to electing well-educated, well-read people instead of reformed alcoholics who play on our fears and religious hopes or pretty faces we might be better off.
Wait! I do believe that B.O. said was a drug user. That makes him better?
So was I. in high school and college. Look at your guy who has been prez for the past 8 years. I think he was in his forties still boozing and snorting. You people don't have anything do you?
Yes. Obama is intelligent.
Very insightful. I hope the Obama team reads this and takes it to heart.
You must have not been watching Barack the last two weeks...he seems a lot more comfortable about giving out some great one liners....
People seems to forget Obama had a degree in international relations from Columbia.
YEP, they sure do. They also seen to forget that he's a lawyer, so he knows how to fight with words.
I don't think zingers is what this is about, though. He also needs to speak about his beliefs and values effectively and simply. It's been harder for him to do that, I think because such statements appeal to something he holds very dear about himself--that he is a reflective decision-maker. He wants to convey that to people, but when he does, he instead sounds indecisive and squirrely to folks. I don't think that's fair, but I think it's a fact.
Great insightful article!! I hope the Obama camp reads your work.
Makes sense to me, just tell lies, just like on the campaign trail, lie, lie, lie. The common folk will love you!
I hope and pray that Obama will not read this column, any other column, or any of the advice in this thread.
None of the last few campaigns were won or lost on the strength of the debates. Al Gore lost because the Democratic base was splintered because of the Clinton debacle, and Gore didn't give Clinton the opportunity to patch it back together. (There was also a little voting booth hanky panky in Fla. & Supreme Court)
Kerry lost mainly on the strength of the swiftboating and fear sown by the Bushes with regard to 9/11 and the Iraq war. (And possible voting hanky panky in Ohio and a couple of other key states.)
For the most part, the debates have been a wash. You watch them, and the talking heads change what you saw to the point that you don't know whether you believe them, or your own lying eyes. So many people make their decision based mainly on 30 second negative attack ads. Difficult, but I believe it's true.
And the lies they listen to at rallies!
You are forgetting a core reason why Democrats "lose" the debates:
The media hacks claim they did. Take the Gore/Bush debates. If you asked the public right after watching them, before any of the pundits had their chance to say anything, they all agreed that Gore won them all, hands down.
But then the talking heads started yammering away and flat out *LIED* regarding what happend. "Oh! Gore *sighed!*" Well, no...no, he didn't. But the media started parroting this lie over and over again and as they say: Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.
And then the focus became whether or not Gore was wearing makeup, if it was the right shade, if it was too much, was his suit the wrong color...an
The same thing happened with Kerry. Ask the audience right after, before the echo machine of the Republicans had a chance to tell the media what to say, and everybody agreed that Kerry trounced Bush. But then suddenly the lies creep in and the distractions become the main story and the next thing you know, people seem to think that Bush at the very least held his own if not outright won.
When will the media do its job of analysis rather than stenography?
Agree but disagree. Without the 'honest' approach to rhetoric proposed above accompanied by newsworthy 'digs,' the media grasps at straws. And in Gore's case those straws were makeup, suit color, sighing and whatever other crap the R's came up with.
The media is an echo chamber. You need to define what those echoes will be so that the R's can't.
In any election cycle we, the public, get a lot of words thrown at us, both from politicians and journalists. But rarely do we get such fine writing with so much useful information. Thanks for a great article. I'm looking forward to Part 2.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
