Ideological values impacted Wednesday’s debate performance
October 6, 2012 5 Comments
What an incredible event was the first presidential debate. Going into Wendesday night, there was immense pressure on Mitt Romney to turn in a decisive performance. He was able to dominate with a coherent message and a sunny disposition.
Anyone who was watching or who caught subsequent analysis knows just how horribly President Obama bombed. The incumbent spoke four minutes more than the challenger, but wasn’t able to deliver as much of a punch. If the White House home brew were anything like the President’s debate performance, its slogan would be “less taste, more filling.”
Beyond the optics of performance, or the policy minutia, there’s another take away from Wednesday night: the candidates’ respective ideologies, and their underlying values, clearly impacted the debate outcome. Romney’s stunning success reflected his high view of work ethic, while Obama’s miserable time grew out of an overinflated sense of self.
Take Mitt Romney’s performance. The governor showed a profound comfort discussing the intricacies of his past and future policies. He had done his homework. Lawyers would say he’d done his due diligence. Too many academics would dismiss this as a regrettable “bourgeois” trait.
Not only did Romney know his ways around the issues, he knew how to comport himself: he was always smiling and looked directly at those he was addressing. As job seekers know, good body language is an indispensable element of social capital. And Romney came off as an applicant who appreciated this.
Contrast Mr. Romney’s preparedness with Mr. Obama’s lack thereof. As many liberals lamented, the latter completely failed to touch on even basic points of attack, such as the “47%” remark. Lacking control or mindfulness, he looked down and scowled way too much, and nodded submissively as a child chided by an authority figure.
Al Gore infamously attributed Obama’s poor performance to high altitude. This blaming of environmental factors is emblematic of a liberal worldview: pinning failure on systemic or external causes rather than on a personal shortcoming of volition or character.
In an amazing encounter with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Senator John Sununu called the President “lazy” for his lack of preparedness. The journalist was stunned, as if the only motivation for such a label could be racism, or some other unjustified bias. That one’s attitudes and actions might effect one’s outcome is simply out of the question for the Left.
So how exactly did liberal ideology translate into failing performance for President Obama? The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is illustrative here. Progress under Ledbetter depends on whether or not a lawyer can sue to rectify the wrong in your life. But it’s not as if women couldn’t sue before; the time to file was merely extended by the act. It was an empty gesture.
In his closing statement, President Obama echoed the sentiment of Ledbetter by reminding the middle class “I’m fighting for you every day.” Here again, progress requires an external savior to take up your cause. And as with Ledbetter, this actual promise to “fight” is a mere gesture. His inability–through four years now–to even sit down and negotiate with Republican congressional leaders on key issues testifies to the inefficacy of his proposition.
Apparently, President Obama had been biding his time before the debate, as if he himself were awaiting a savior: his own celebrity. As with Generation Y–a.k.a. the Millennials–who so strongly support him, whether or not Jay Z was on the iPod seemed to take precedence over the grittier details of policy. And in Millennial style, the President on Wednesday displayed an annoyed arrogance, the kind that rests on the unwarranted belief of one’s own “superior intelligence.”
This is the crux of liberal hubris, that the world gets better because one knows best, and a mere lift of the fingers will make it so. Even competition is moot, because in a progressive society, a lawyer can sue your competitor or the IRS can collect what the cosmos owes you. In fact, lugging your own teleprompter to a presidential debate is par for the course, as some Obama fans at UW Madison seem to believe.
In stark contrast, Mitt Romney’s stellar performance testified on behalf of a better set of beliefs: a sober understanding of the hard work, preparation, and effort that he and all Americans must steel themselves for if things are to get better. This is what real progress requires. November will be a test of whether, as a whole, America understands this simple truth or not.