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
Another Conservative Speaks UP!!!
http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E
one need only LISTEN to Our Pop Culture to understand the point you make
The ReThugs figured out a long time ago the key: DUMB IT DOWN
so if you can't beat 'em, join 'em???
UGH!
no thanks
"appearing to be an over-educated smart talker" I feel sorry for what you have allowed your country to become. Aim low, shoot foot.
There's an historical reason for this. During the immediate post-WWII years, the country was by and large deferential to elites, with the exception of fringe groups without influence. Then Vietnam happened -- brought to us, as the book has it, by "the best and the brightest." This, and the general sixties cultural explosion, led to a generalized suspicion of elites, a suspicion that crosses ideological lines. As a result, ever since Carter, American politicians have tried to sound "folksy." Needless to say, this is a matter of throwing out the baby with the bathwater; and the public's skepticism towards elites has been manipulated for all manner of nefarious reasons. But it's not as if the sentiment came from nowhere.
People see what they want in debates and conventions. Look at Kat Seelye of the NYT. When she liveblogged the Dem debates and Palin's RNC speech, everything was positive toward Clinton and Palin. There is clearly a lot of identification going on, and I don't think she sees it.
Obama has lots of advice, he doesn't need more, but I'll add mine too. :)
Consise, clear, friendly, but not down home patronizing, on point, not too much explaining. I wouldn't get into a battle with McCain. I think McCain can sink on his own. Don't let McCain bait him. Don't let McCain get under his skin, don't give smart alecky responses they usually backfire, just be himself with his great personality, and like the author says don't be too smart, just have authority and assurance. Break a leg!!
You would think that after winning virtually every Presidential debate in the past thirty years on a factual basis, the Democrat's would have figured out that facts don't really matter in debates.
Facts don't matter, programs don't matter. Image is all that matters. Al Gore destroyed Bush is all their debates, yet the incompetent Bush was declared the winner because Gore "sighed" and rolled his eyes at Bush's stupidity.
The Democrats would have been very wise to have started playing down Obama's debating skills and lower expectations to the ground. He is too thoughtful a person to "win" a debate with any right winger given the low intellect of American voters. McSame's "My friends,..." lines with his oh so sincere demeanor will be the winner. It won't matter that he represents four more years of Bush's disastrous policies.
But that's just it: Gore never sighed or rolled his eyes during the debates. Oh, people *said* he did. But that was a lie put forward by the Republicans. It got picked up and echoed around the world with nobody ever bothering to call it for what it was: Bullshit.
He sighed. I saw it. And as soon as he did it, I knew he'd lost. It appeared to be condescending, much like Bush I checking his watch as though he had some place else to be.
Obama needs to make truth the issue. That no matter how simple and plain spoken a lie is ..... it is still a lie and an attempt to play the American people as fools. He needs to hammer home the honesty of his character and the deceit of his opponent. He needs to make it clear to the voters that truth will only prevail if they demand it and their vote is based upon it.
That before they can expect the truth from politicians then they will have to punish the liars first.
As long as deceit is the winning currency of campaigns then the truth will be in short supply. It is Obama's task to make this clear and to expose McCain for the liar he has become.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" Franklin Roosevelt
"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" John Kennedy
"................................................................" Barack Obama
"Bomb, bomb, bomb.....bomb, bomb Iran." - John McCain
To be fair, those quotes aren't from Primary's or elections...very rarely is your best world during elections. Unless you are G.W. Bush.
Very informative. Thanks.
Great article. In a nutshell, Americans like quick, simple answers that don't tell them anything they have to think to hard about. Basically, we like answers to confirm what we already know.
However...my hope is that the side of Obama I've heard only a few times can come out during the debates. Because he has a rare ability, which he's recently had less success tapping into, to both inform AND entertain at the same time. Given a choice, Americans typically go for entertainment over information, and that's why character and personality seem to win elections more than policy-speak. But if Obama can wake America up and actually CHANGE some MINDS, that's what needs to happen to swing this election his way for good.
"In a nutshell, Americans like quick, simple answers that don't tell them anything they have to think to hard about"
That is why Obama is so successful isn't it? He paints a picture with no real details in his speeches.
During his big speech he talked about how he was going to pay for free health care and college for all while giving 95% of Americans tax cuts . . . cross out a few lines on the budget LOL.
Crossing out every dime of national defense (which is actually in the Constitution) would not come close to covering universal health care.
Oh come ON... "his big speech" you refer to was the acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, if I read you right. Those things are NEVER big on details...just check out McCain's or Kerry's, or Bush's(x2), or Gore's...
And how would YOU come across if you were trying to explain things to somebody, but you knew they'd only get 10-15 second soundbites of it to make it to their ears?
If you want more details, go to Obama's website...he's had this stuff up for months. But his speeches are, by necessity, full of short and concise points, just as any candidate's speeches must be in the TV age.
That's exactly why I'm really looking forward to the debates...it'll be the first time many of us will have had any reasonable chance to hear some longer responses to some specific issues.
evidence?
Hey, it wouldn't even come close to Paulson's blank check.
Of course, McPalin have no details, because their stands on everything are either simple catch phrases like VICTORY or GREED or else differenct from what they were yesterday.
Not at all. If anything, he gives too many details for the average couch potato.
Just compare the Obama speech to the McCain speech, it's a night and day difference.
Universal health care doesn't mean free health care for everyone, it means everyone has the opportunity to buy health care with subsidies for those meeting certain criteria.
And I guess you didn't hear McCain's speech, he's going to increase spending while giving ALL Americans a tax cut.
Great column, but I beg to differ that "So far, Obama hasn't come close to figuring out how to sound like a man of the people." I've noticed that lately, he has a very casual, offhand style and a gee-whiz manner that makes him sound like he was back on the farm in Kansas. I agree with the premise of the article--of course he can't sigh, roll his eyes, or use polysyllabic words. But I think he does come across as folksy in most interviews, so I'd be surprised if he didn't do so equally well in the debate. That said, debating is not a strength, and I'm sure he'd much prefer to be giving a grand oration on Friday night. But since he's facing McCain, it shouldn't be all that hard. That guy is a terrible speaker, in a debate and pretty much everywhere else.
Excellent article. I kept wondering how people like Bush got elected. Now I understand much better. We need to get this TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OBAMA CAMP.
So I guess what you're saying is beware of the dumbing down of the American electorate. Which is true. In order to win over Palin/McCain supporters, Obama must get down to their level of idiocy, lack of knowledge and incredible ability to tell bold face lies.
I say, forget about that 44% of poor, ignorant souls--we need them about as much as Wall Street needs a bailout.
It's my opinion that Obama is not only already prepared, but has set a trap that McCain will inevitably walk right into.
McCain and his advisors will expect that the Obama that they'll be debating will be the one who debated Hillary Clinton 20 times, and the one who gives such eloquent speeches. That Obama is one that can be beat by McCain the same way Bush beat Kerry, by looking wordy and indecisive in comparison. I don't think, though, that that is the Obama that will show up on Friday.
First, the Democratic debates call for something althogether different than the General Election Debates. Democrats are, by their nature, more wonkish and want too hear about policy specifics and the nuanced differences between Candidates proposals. By contrast, Republican debates are all about immediate, simple answers to complex problems (go back and watch how they fell over themselves trying to top each other, one pinnacle being when Romney said Guantanamo should be BIGGER). General Election Debates are all about connecting with the rest of voters. Kerry couldn't do that because he is, to the core, a policy wonk. Not that that's a bad thing, but he couldn't switch gears. Watch his performance on the Daily Show back in '04, even off-the-cuff he sounded like a well-bred lecturer. "Would that it were so" was one of his answers to a joke about his wife's money.
Some in the press and in the public accuse Barack Obama of a seeming lack of passion in his interaction with the media. What were they expecting Little Richard or James Brown. I want my Little Richard and James Brown all over the stage. I want them doing splits, screaming, and howling and moving my feet to a compelling beat. I want a president to be a calming influence on a nation full of fears and full of psychosis and neurosis that lead to all sorts of outcomes. If a figure can be central to an idea, let that idea and that figure exist and function as the embodiment, or the gift of -- calm. It is with a clear mind that problems are solved. It is said that one should have the appropriate amount of emotion for the situation -- no more -- no less. Ego and self-pity get in the way of the proper distribution of emotion. I demand more attention and thereby eclipse the possibility. I am not worth attention and therefore abdicate my right to exist, therefore I cannot function and the outcome is tragic. Striking the proper and serene balance to realize a new day in which to solve problems, versus bomb, bomb, bomb, and decision by wet finger in the wind, and Lieberman on the lap, which shall we choose ?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
