the Greater Nomadic Council

Debate Verdict

I personally thought the debate was a resounding victory for Kerry, but of course, my assessment doesn't ultimately mean a damn thing, since it's based on the candidates' respective ability to deploy things like "facts" and "arguments." As both Mallarme and the Daily Show have pointed out, the undecideds the debates are aimed at are, generally, uninformed morons, and so what really matters is overall appearances and general impressions. Gee Dubs, by trotting out his roughly 3 (three) points repeatedly, played strong to the moron vote just by appealing to their fellow feeling. Kerry, on the other hand, surprised me by coming off as truly presidential in a way that I hadn't conceived him before: forceful, clear, and telegenic.

But as irrelevant as it is, I think a few brief points about the debate's rhetoric are in order. Bush's overarching point (and I'm working from memory here, so don't get mad) was that Kerry's doubts and reservations and complexities were the single greatest threat to our success in Iraq and in the world. Though the "f-f" word didn't come out, he repeatedly threw back at Kerry the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" quote, asking as he did so whether that sentiment could possibly leave room for Kerry to be a trusted CIC in Iraq. I don't think that, rhetorically, Kerry did a great job of rebutting this (and again, I'm reading for the moron vote on this one) - the best he had was the bit about the "Pottery Barn" rule (though it doesn't quite fit since, if you get technical, while we certainly broke it, both plenty of our soldiers and plenty of Iraqi innocents have bought it).

It should go without saying, though, that as policy, Bush's point represents a fundamental, and startlingly contemporary, misunderstanding. Certainly, image is important, and it does effect our relationships with other countries. I can certainly imagine a situation where the U.S. did not want to appear "weak" in the context of an ongoing, focused struggle with a unified enemy - say, the U.S.S.R. But it is not the President's primary job to make sure the actions of the nation appear unified, forceful, and carefully planned - it's his job to make sure that they actually are all of those things.

It's easy for those of us who know how to do things like follow extended arguments and conceptualize the ideas in multi-clause sentences to see that John Kerry has a stronger and more concrete plan for the future, and that it is actually his plan, or at least one that he understands and agrees with. But George W. Bush managed to not engage with those horns at all tonight - instead, he contended that the most important difference between himself and John Kerry is that he, Bush, would be better able to appear right, and sure, and determined. To whom? Certainly not to the international community, who see Bush as either an utter buffoon or as outright evil. Certainly not to a large proportion of Americans themselves, who share these opinions to varying degrees. To our enemies, I suppose, who will, based on the firm set of his lips, forget that he allowed their leader to go free, and created for them the greatest symbol for recruitment since Israel. Determination will see us through - well-constructed policy is, apparently, of at best secondary importance.