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 is a very good column with "gud" advice. The elitist label the right-wing has used on Dem candidates for decades still works well with the reptilian brain of most "amerikans", and Obama is going to have to find some way to avoid lookin" too smart...(r
Why the US populace wants to elect idiots like themselves (read Bush) is beyond me...I would always want a politician representing me to be smarter and wiser then I am.
The great thing about the English language as spoken in the USA is that there are nearly 10 - 40 words for each idea that one needs to express. Those of us who care that Obama is intelligent and learned already KNOW that he has the vocabulary to support the notion that he is, indeed, intelligent and learned. It's time to forget about nuance, details are available on his website for those who want that much detail.
To get through to the heart and soul of the populace, not their minds, he needs to cut to the core. (notice short words at end of sentence and how much emotional connotation they have). He needs to get to the guts of the people and you do that with short, emotionally charged words and sentences (yes, scoffers, Sound Bites!) No more than 10 words per sentence hits you in the gut and makes it easy to remember and take back to the water cooler!! When people talk about you as a straight talker, honest and forthright
These are some of the 'brilliant''' things Obama said at the Saddalback event.
"It's above my pay grade"
"The devil is in the details"
Well, at least he didn't say "Don't go there" or "nukular". The man's a genius.
Good analysis. I think Obama has a decent shot.
He is in a position where McCain has drawn much attention to his lying and his flip flopping. Obama needs to hammer on that in an effective way, and he needs to stay on the offensive.
Obama shouldn't dumb things down, he just needs to find ways to explain his message in simple terms. No big words, no unnecessary details.
One thing the article doesn't mention is the charisma factor. I think Gore and Kerry really suffered from coming off as stiff and dispassionate, they were very stilted while Bush was relaxed, which came off as more sincere and more likable.
I think Obama has the advantage here, he seems much more conversational to me while McCain has been coming off lately as defensive, confused, and insincere. In a TV debate you can't overlook things like McCain's awkward grimace that's supposed to pass for a smile. A big part of Palin's boost for the ticket was that she scores way better than McCain on the "have a beer" scale.
I'm a bit worried about what Obama may say, it probably will be too wonkish and wordy, but on the other hand I'm confident that his presence and his delivery will come off as more sincere and presidential than McCain.
My senior thesis in Rhetoric was basically a dissection and explanation as to why Bush was a better debater than Kerry or Gore. "You're either for abortion, or you're against it" says it all. Obama needs to come out and say "Either you're an honest man, or you're not, and my opponent (sadly) is not". If he makes that point enough times, and doesn't just hint at it, but comes right out and says it, he can win.
I fully, completely agree with you, Joseph. Unfortunately for us all, and the rest of the nation, this WILL NOT and CANNOT happen for these reasons:
1. Obama is who he is and he talks like a professor. You cannot change that in 3 days.
2. The press has already set the narrative: Obama=elitist, McCain=str
3. Obama will be asked questions about his character and background and will get stuck on those.
As always happens, the Dems are too late, too slow and too arrogant to do what it takes to win a big election.
Either that or the education system has effectively failed the whole nation. Just the notion that an educated man has to "dumb it down" for us makes me want to raise my children in Belgium.
When a man is raised poor and makes it to the top of the Harvard Law Review on his own recognizance, he is an "elitist".
When a man is the son of a Navy Admiral and that man grows up to marry an heiress, he is "one of us".
If you really believe people are buying that, I got a bridge to sell you..
People do buy that and the bridge is in Alaska...l
The mix of ignorance and fear has been a recipe to the GOP successes.
I think you miss the point. In every democracy, there are elites and lay people. It's human nature to want someone like us. I think that's why people that are educated like educated politicians and look down on people that don't respect education. I think we have logical reasons as well, but I think that the "they are different" feeling cuts both ways.
Obama's in a sticky situation. Despite growing up with a single mother, he's from Hawaii. Despite being a community organizer, he went to Harvard. Despite being hailed as a great orator, one of the most frequent complaints seem to be that he hasn't connected.
McCain is very good at the straight direct talk. If he treats these debates like a town hall and throws in some pre-written one-liners, then we've got trouble.
You forget-McCain was an officer in the Navy, officers speak differently from enlisted people. Obama had to learn to use a different vocabulary at Occidental & Harvard but he didn't unlearn the patois young people in Hawaii use & learned from their elders. The debates may turn on who had to unlearn more, a Navy officer's kid raised in officer country on the base or the working class kid raised in Hawaii? Obama is more versitile than McCain. Ward room conversations of officers are a tad different than the talk of Hawaiian kids on the play ground.
The debates could be interesting.
Some of your points are valid, others are questionable.
Obama certainly can sound professorial, but I think if he has some simple, concise, and catchy answers to key questions he can do well.
I don't buy the whole "straight talk" thing any more, and it seems like the public isn't much either. Now it's more like McCain=Liar. "Straight talk" is hard to sell when you're a serial liar and a flip flopper.
And it's odd to describe things as "too late" when Obama has led the polls for most of the election cycle and leads now. Obama arguably doesn't even need to win the debates, he just needs to avoid a big loss.
Before giving George W more credit than he deserves, let's not forget the crucial role professional speachwriters have played in fleshing out this Carl Rove creation.
I think if Obama can speak as though he's having a political discussion with a friend or relative, as opposed to speaking as if he's teaching, and if he relaxes and shows passion, he'll do well. He needs to realize that in most cases, he has facts on his side. Sometimes the best response to an attack is something as simple as a laugh or a slow shake of the head. He needs to keep he answers simple, but not simplistic. A little of the fire he's shown in some of the recent rallies would be great. But of course, he can't get too angry or the McCain campaign will be saying he's "freaking out" or "panicking
Obviously, Obama's debate problem is that intelligent, educated people who are not one-issue rich people who don't want their taxes raised, recognize Obama quickly as the Harvard-trained, brilliant guy he is, and find him palpably decent too--head and shoulders in both brains and decency over the now Snopes-like McCain. But the very Rust Belt white masses Obama must win part of to take the election are not smart enough not to RESENT the same obvious intelligence and education which wins the debate for Obama with the educated "elite." How Obama puts together a persona which can win at least a slice of uneducated, not terribly rational, working-class white voters is obviously the $64,000 question of this election cycle. I hope Biden can help. I hope Rendell and Strickland can somehow help. Axelrod must know these voters inside out by now. If Obama can just win a few, he wins this election.
Jean,
Suppose for a moment that you were a 3rd. generation democrat from Ohio. Your grandfather worked in mills with an 8th grade education. He was honest, hardworking and supported his family. His weekly paycheck was $5.00. He wanted to send his kids to college. He was killed in a work related accident. The son was drafted for WWII. He sends his Army pay back to his family.
After returning, he starts a family of his own. He, too, has to work in factories. He has a mother, a wife and 2 small children to support. He has a high school education, a G.I. Bill that would allow him to go to school, but work took up all his time.
He moved his family to Arizona and made a better wage. Still not enough to send his kids to college. The kids spend 8 years working and going to school to get degrees.
I am one of those kids and I resent reading what you think about the Rust Belt people. They have honor, integrity and skills that are way beyond any college education.
For the 1st. time in 40 years, I am not voting for anyone on the top of my ballot. While B.O. may be brilliant, he has no experience. Now is the time for experience, not a blank resume. Perhaps if he now announced who he had in mind for cabinet positions - which included well rounded people with experience, I would vote for him.
What exactly is the experience that you believe McCain has that would make him better qualified, at this critical time, than Obama? McCain has no more executive experience than Obama. Is it merely the fact that McCain has been in the Senate for over 20 years? Is it his experience as a POW for five years (30 years ago)? Are you saying that, notwithstanding the fact that McCain has lied through his teeth for this entire election cycle, consistently voted with Bush for the past 8 years, chosen as his VP candidate someone who is clearly not up to the task, and has set forth no clear plan to resolve this country's most pressing needs, you would still vote for him?
If you want to look at experience, Obama's life experience actually should actually make him much more compelling than McCain, not less. Yes, McCain suffered as a POW, but I fail to see what that experience makes him better qualified than Obama. McCain's life has been one of privilege and easy access to everything necessary to advance himself. Obama, as a mixed race child with no economic advantages growing up, has managed, through sheer intelligence and force of will, to get himself where he is today. I think that what Obama has managed to accomplish by this point in his life is a testament to his ability to deal with the challenges facing this country now.
McCain rushed to find a "bail out" plan he could pander for votes while Obama decided to wait until all the cards were on the table and examine the shortfallings of the plan before putting forth a proposal. He needs to attack McSAME on his legislation to obolish amtrak, his same old republican policies, his inexperince with the economy as well as Palin's, his ties to the Keating Five, his lack of understanding the "common man" and his problems, and his warlike nature at a time when restraint and negotiations are needed to rebuild bridges that Bush and his cronies have destroyed. He needs to install trust and hope in the American people.Peo
Yah, and just remember, Obama, if you attack McCain's "verbiage" you'll have Sarah Palin to answer to.
I'm a softey for men who think and can be nuanced in thier answers. Unfortunetly Obama is going to have to dumb it down for americans.
You are right especially when referring to his supporters. They may not even understand the pictures unless they show dollar signs with arrows going toward what looks like a picture of them......
Pick a rhetorical spin:
Too smart/out of touch
Too dumb
The two are contradictory, so don't use both.
Best of luck.
Sadly, being advised not to use "big words" or complicated thoughts is more of an indictment of the dumbing down of the average American than it is criticism of Obama.
It is difficult for someone who has spent their life learning about complex ideas to dumb them down and satisfy those talking heads and others that they are more "likeable" than their adversary, so they should be supported.
We saw that George W Bush was judged to be more "like us" than either of his opponents and now we've also seen how much good that did when it came to managing the country.
I fear that the same mentality exists, to the detriment of the country, and indeed the world.
YIKES!!!
Debate point taken about the honesty, and 'man of the people' portrayal. But, even though Lincoln could present this, he remained totally erudite. He portayed depth of wisdom, and real intelligence. Unfortunately today, people who believe Republicans win these debates, don't seem to be considering the depth and substance of wisdom. As the old adage goes, water seeks its own level. Case in point, George W. impressed many voters as someone they'd like to have a beer with. Sarah Palin is getting a lot of attention as 'somone regular people can relate to'. We don't need 'regular' 'beer buddies' to lead the country. We need profoundly smart, wise people, who exibit a far greater understanding of affairs national and international, fiscal, political, social, etc. I don't believe we should seek candidates soley because they're 'folksy', or ones who don't posess the insight to blink first and do enough thoughtful self examination to understand how unqualified they might be. There are reasons that in this country more people hold in high esteem Chuck Liddell than Stephen Hawking. That doesn't bode well for insight.
Smart talkers lose debates because the intellectually lazy public cannot tear itself away from celebrity worship long enough to take an interest in the issues. Slinging sarcastic and dishonest GOP campaign slogans is a lot easier than actually taking the time to understand problems and debate their potential solutions. Not to mention the free ride the GOP gets from the complicit corporate owned media.
To your point, note the huge volume of the public who faithfully refuse to miss a moment of the entire season of American Idol, discuss it ad nauseum, and exert themselves to vote on it. If that poupilation gave a fourth of that attention to the actual history of the candidates, bills they've enacted or signed, deregulation they claim to have not been complicit with, etc., then we'd be in a whole lot different shape today.
And it's obvious the Obama supporters haven't checked into his voting record, he has LOST a lot of supporters who have done so.....
Obama gets the best free media ride I've EVER seen.....
WRONG!
If the media really did their job and called out McCain on all of his lies, flip-flops, bad judgement, and bad temper he would be down by 30 points now. Instead the corporate media make up controversies like "lipstick gate".
When right wing radio has 90 percent of the market and Faux news dominates the TV, Obama is at a huge disadvantage.
Apparently you haven't been around much.
And thence the problem -- Obama has become surrounded by the very sort of Harvard poindexters who've screwed the pooch on every previous election. If he's gonna surround himself with Harvard people, he should stick to the Law School, not the crap factory that is their undergraduate alumni network. It's telling that it's almost impossible to graduate there with less than a B+ average, and there are 800 "editors" listed on the student paper. It's a pompous country club for the overprivleged, and the over-convinced of their own smarts. Remember, Barack, you made it where you did by working for it and proving people wrong every step of the way. Be yourself. Listen to the fighter in you.
no offense, but I'm pretty sure you haven't been around Harvard lately! it's not a country club at all, there are good kids there who work their butts off. a lot of them do social justice work. a few years ago they launched a major protest aimed at living wage policies.
I have been saying that I think the element Obama needs right now is an added emotional tug. That would be, in my estimation, the invocation of one word: Pride. Pride in our country, our lives, jobs, local communities. This is the attraction of Palin, supposedly, though she's a con. But I think it's legitimate fertile ground for Obama to say the things that stir the emotion ..that woud bring in a lot of non-Democrats.
Yes, but she does not tell the truth, so we don't believe her "emotional tug." She's a bad commercial. So if Obama is going to speak in short phrases with one syllable words, he better sound truthful. I say the "Main Street" line has gotten some attention. What's the equivalent in foreign policy?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
