A Debate About the Importance of Debates

      For the most part I've thought an absurd level of stress has been put on these debates but the reason has been that Romney had to have some premise of how he would turn this around. The convention was supposed to do this for him. Instead he actually lost a point and then the President-and other Democrats like Elizabeth Warren-got a permanent boost in the polls after the Democratic convention.

     Today in the Wall St. Journal. Joseph Epstein argues that the debates are overrated. While I agree with this coming in the WSJ editorial page that's somewhat interesting as if you desire Romney-as the WSJ does-you almost have to hope that somehow this debate will do something for Romney nothing else has done running for President for 6 years. It's being reported that he plans to show empathy at the debate. Great. Ever heard of too little too late?

     Mr. Epstein argues that the skills required to win debates-glibness-are not what we need in a President. He puts it this way:

     "The qualities required of a successful debater are a mind well-stocked on the subject, or subjects, up for discussion; the ability to marshal an orderly argument; the rhetorical tools to get this argument across; and quickness of response. The last is perhaps the most important, because quickness of response appeals so much to those keeping debate scorecards. But how valuable is it really?"

     "At a memorial dinner I attended a few years ago for a well-known economist, one of the speakers—Gary Becker, the Nobel Prize-winning economist—remarked that on more than one occasion, members of the economics department at the University of Chicago nearly washed the now deceased economist out its Ph.D. program when he was a student. They did so, Mr. Becker said, because in seminar rooms the young man's responses to questions were halting, faltering, unimpressive."

     "Not infrequently," Mr. Becker remarked, "he would approach a teacher two or three days afterward to tell him that he thought his question improperly formulated, and he was usually correct." The almost-dismissed economist ended up several years later as chairman of the economics department at the University of Chicago and a leader in the field of labor economics.
Mr. Becker's point was that quickness of response has nothing to do with genuine thought, which requires brooding over a subject, laboriously working through its complications. Quickness of response, so central to the debater, Mr. Becker concluded, was just that: a minor and useful skill, like juggling or tap-dancing, but one having little to do with handling difficult questions and serious problems."

     http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443507204578020324129263546.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

     So what's going on are they worried Mitt wont do so well after all? We've been hearing all about his debate prep for a month and now they finally want to pare back expectations? Then Epstein tries to cinch his point with a rather curious comparison:

      "During the second term of George W. Bush, I saw Jackie Mason on stage. "This Bush," the comedian said, "what a terrible speaker! Uh and ah and oh, he stutters, he mumbles, he's ungrammatical—a horrible speaker. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, now there's a speaker. Smooth, never a hesitation, well-made sentences, everything flows like honey. What a speaker, that Clinton, magnificent! I guess the moral of the story is, you want to be a terrific speaker, you shouldn't believe a [blipping] thing you say."

     "While watching the forthcoming presidential debates, try to remember that glibness, quick out of the starting gate responses, a taste for one's opponent's jugular—all the things one doesn't need or want in a president—are likely to win the day. Enjoy."

     Is Epstein arguing that debating skills have little to do with the skills we want in a President? Maybe, but he more or less refutes his own point by comparing George W. Bush to Clinton. After all, everyone-Republicans no less than Democrats-loves Clinton these days whereas no one even wants to be seen in the light of day with Bush.

     I'm not kidding, early in the Summer some GOP Congressmen wanted to meet with Dick Cheney over the dreaded sequester cuts and there were no cameras allowed in the room.

     If he wants to make the case that a good debater does not a good President make and vice versa, this is the worst comparison for his case as Clinton was both a great debater and a great President whereas Bush was neither.

     Overall, though, I agree that the debates at least his year have been overdone. This was the result of Romney's team flagging them relentlessly. These debates won't be Romney's silver bullet. What will? There are no silver bullets. You don't run a losing campaign for 6 months and then win based on a debate or any one development.