PLANK OCTOBER 9, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A public service announcement for worried liberals: There will be a debate on Thursday night between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan. Biden will say “literally” a lot. Most of the time, he will not be using “literally” correctly. He may even tell a story about his dad sitting on the edge of his bed and calling him “Joey.” That does not mean the Democratic campaign should pack it in and forfeit the election. For his part, Ryan will try to avoid answering tricky questions by saying he doesn’t want to “get all wonky” on us. Moderator Martha Raddatz may tell him to go ahead and walk us through the math. That is not a game-changer that seals victory for Obama.
I know the temptation to weigh in on every utterance of the debate is strong. During last week’s debate, many of you barely waited until the opening statements were over before declaring on Twitter that Romney had “won” that portion of the evening. As the debate continued, journalists who had cynically predicted earlier in the day that the press corps was eager to change the narrative of the campaign rushed to embrace a new narrative for the campaign. Yes, Obama was surprisingly listless and restrained. But what would have happened if he had actually committed a gaffe? Would Twitter have gone silent as hyperventilating liberals everywhere passed out?
It seems quaint now that media critics used to complain about pundits going on air right after a speech or debate to broadcast their unconsidered thoughts and opinions. Now the pontificating happens in real-time via Twitter. The tin-foil hat kooks were wrong—no one is trying to read our thoughts. Given the means to express them, we voluntarily offer up every idea that flits through our brains.
That’s not Twitter’s fault, any more than earlier concerns about insta-punditry were the fault of televisions. It is our fault for believing that because we have the means to share every thought with the world that we should. That’s what G-chat and Skype-chat—or if you want to be really old-school, your spouse on the couch next to you—is for. You are allowed to take a breath and reconsider before hitting “tweet.”
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
Kevin Drum wrote a thoughtful post today suggesting that the liberal freak-out of the past week is the consequence of fewer hacks on the left. If the debate performances were reversed, he argues, conservatives would have talked up Romney’s virtues anyway and asserted that he came out a winner. It’s hard to disagree with that, especially after watching conservatives spend several days after the RNC trying to insist that “real Americans” absolutely loved Clint Eastwood’s brilliant skewering of invisible Obama.
But I think there’s something else going on with liberals, who often use Twitter as much to enhance their own intellectual reputations as to critique their opponents. Criticizing their own guy allows them to prove that they are smarter than him, that they see missed opportunities the candidate was just not sharp enough to take. If pointing those out ends up hurting their candidate, well, that’s just the price a liberal pays for being intellectually honest.
I know, I’m a spoilsport. It’s all in fun. These days, a journalist’s career often depends on developing their own brand, and the people love sparkling wit and analysis delivered at light-speed. What’s more, our employers often require it of us as well, encouraging us to live-tweet conventions, major speeches, and debates. I’m not encouraging liberals to embrace hackdom, insisting that 2+2=5 and that Obama has suddenly become a world-class debater. Nor do I think journalists should abstain from Twitter, although a little moderation would go a long way.
I’m suggesting we all take a deep breath. In the course of writing an article, I set down a lot of ideas and then delete some of them. Sometimes I pitch a blog post and then while trying to write it discover that my initial argument just doesn’t hold up. There is value in examining an idea or opinion to see if it holds up beyond the moment in which you become aware of it. The problem with putting all of your thoughts out on Twitter—or even in a panicky blog post reacting to the most recent poll—is that you understandably become more wedded to your ideas once you have broadcast them. Multiply that by hundreds or thousands of like-minded peers in your Twitter feed and you end up with the nervous breakdown by MSNBC stars that followed last week’s debate.
So on Thursday, before you rush to be the first to declare a major momentum shift—a distinction no one will remember five minutes later—try counting to ten first. And Andrew, take a Xanax. Literally.
22 comments
It will take more than Xanax. Pointing out that Obama was "listless and restrained" does not "prove that they are smarter than him". Even Obama's one gaffe (saying that Romney's position on social security was essentially the same as Obama's) was "listless and restrained" (to be clear, I think it a Kinsley gaffe). For those who support Obama's re-election, I believe the best advice to him and his political advisers is to move on to another issue; the time for making the economic case for Obama's re-elections has been missed, now develop another (perhaps more difficult) case.
- rayward
October 9, 2012 at 3:28pm
There is some consensus that Mr. Mitt improved his standing in the polls due to his debate performance. Maybe that consensus is wrong and the improvement is the result of something else.
- Doug12
October 9, 2012 at 4:13pm
ray, there is a townhall debate in which Obama will get plenty of opportunities to make his economic case.
- blackton
October 9, 2012 at 5:46pm
If Obama does very well and connects with people in a way Romney can't in the second debate, what's everyone going to say? Time for the Obama comeback on the Romney comeback story?
- ironyroad
October 9, 2012 at 5:51pm
I ain't sweatin' the debates. If Americans decide Romney has won them and they vote for him in November, that's proof to me that we are suicidal. And what can be done about that? The next Wall Street crash will be cataclysmic, because this time the U.S. government won't have the funds to keep our economy from total meltdown. I think a strong indication that we might be suicidal came when G.W. Bush got a second term. It has something to do with the return of religion as the dominant force in America and the world--millennial politics and all that. And nothing can be done about it. What will be will be. I'm getting too old to care about people who don't care about themselves.
- magboy47.
October 10, 2012 at 1:51am
Amen, magboy! `"Toute nation a le gouvernmente qu'elle merite"' (de Maistre). If Americans (whether by 50.1% or 270 electoral votes or plutocratic monarchy or whatever) deign to select a bullying pathological liar -- and particularly on the basis of a brilliant performance as a bullying pathological liar -- then they must content themselves with the fruits of their efforts. Sadly, however, the rest of the world also pays a price for such folly and ignorance; and this in turn reverberates on Americans...
- vst
October 10, 2012 at 3:01am
Good post. Vast vested interest requires that this be a horse race down to the wire. It's clear that Dems were on the verge of getting overconfident. O's rope-a-dope in the first debate sets the stage for him to come roaring back and put this thing away in the last couple of weeks. This election comes down to the ground game in swing states, and all the pieces are in place for Dems to vote early and often.
- Robert Powell
October 10, 2012 at 4:31am
Going into the debate, the pundit consensis was that Romney had to give details about his positions or he was doomed. Well, his details were that *he* would not allow his tax cuts or medicare modifications to hurt anyone. His closing statement was a perfect presentation of magical thinking: Just think - elect Romney and we will have tax reform, save social security, medicare, and medicaid, increase defense spending, reduce the deficit, and create 12 million new jobs! All without any sacrifice of anyone in any way. I got angry with Andrew Sullivan because he says Obama was totally arrogant in thinking he had won the debate. Obama did his usual thing in debates: let the other person make an ass of himself. Ohhhhh, but Obama looked down at the podium! Obama said 'uh' a lot! Obama did not talk over and interrupt Lehrer! Obama came off as polite and obliging instead of alpha male!
- polijunky
October 10, 2012 at 9:25am
I can think of only one good thing about Obama's abysmal performance at the last debate: it means many MANY more people will tune in to the next one, and at the next one I expect we'll see a different Obama. His performance was a train wreck, but make no mistake about train wrecks, they're impossible to not watch. The people that watched him last time will tune in either to see him fail again or to (like me) to watch with hopeful eye for his balls to engage. The people who didn't watch but who've heard all about how Romney wiped the floor with him, same deal. On the other hand, maybe Magboy is right and we're just suicidal. Magboy is usually pretty square on the money, and if that's the case I may just start drinking heavily come November. Take my advice now everyone, while you can: buy shares in Jamesons.
- Tristan
October 10, 2012 at 10:00am
Romney started out with a blustering bit of blowhard manly chitchat about being with Michelle ("instead of me"---since that would be gay), which reminded me of his taunting "attagirl" slur he famously used to regularly deride a male student in his his prep school days. Then, and I guess this could apply to his attitude toward either Lehrer or Obama or both, was his"I'm gonna grab you and teach you how to act and cut off that girly blonde hair your have" cuz I am the man here. I am surprised no one has specifically identified these aspects of his atavistic bully-boy nastiness. Maybe a picture of Andrew Sullivan startled me into this obvious but overlooked bit of classic repressed Romney jujitsu enjoying a vicious comeback.
- atlasqq
October 10, 2012 at 10:19am
Thanks RP for a dose of sanity. If Romney gets elected, I'll eat my hat.
- AaronW
October 10, 2012 at 10:28am
When Romney says his tax plan will cut rates by 20% across the board, not increase the debt and not decrease the share of taxes by the wealthy, isn't he lying? He has no such tax plan. He has no tax plan, period. He said he only has the intention of making a tax plan that meets those criteria and has no intention of telling us how he intends to meet those criteria. If I said, I intend to fly across the country by flapping my arms, would you call that a plan to fly across the country?
- Nusholtz
October 10, 2012 at 10:35am
Romney said, if I heard him correctly, that our health care system gets the best results in the world. Obama let it go. He criticized him for dealing with health care before jobs and Obama didn't point out a) why it was important to deal with health care and b) that he did deal with jobs. He didn't mention the auto bailout which saved many jobs. He let Romney's pretense that they were block granting and cutting medicaid by 30% in order to make it better go by. He let the opening about Romney tax accountant go by. He let the comment about half of the green energy subsidies failing go by. I have watched every Presidential debate since 1960 and this is the first time I honestly thought I could have done better.
- stanmvp48
October 10, 2012 at 10:49am
Perfect closer: "And Andrew, take a Xanax. Literally. " And good tutorial on 'literally'.
- AB
October 10, 2012 at 11:20am
Robert Powell makes a good point. The Dems were overconfident before the debate. And now the Republicans are overconfident. Thanks, Guv!
- magboy47.
October 10, 2012 at 11:49am
Mr. Powell, yes! & I felt exactly as atlassqq, that Romney is a sadistic bully. Beyond the debates I'm worried about Libya. No doubt, the Republicans will try to make this equivalent to 9/11 or the Iranian Revolution, conveniently forgetting that 9/11 happened on their watch and we're at war because of 9/11 and people are now mad at us for killing people. So they are going to hit back (surprise!) I think the real problem is this: one party has gone nuts, beyond the realm of reason or compromise, and will do whatever it takes to win, period. And the other aspect of that is, the people are so uninformed, or stupid, well just watch Jay Walking. It's enough to make you cry.
- Sophia
October 10, 2012 at 12:17pm
I've got an ex-wife that reminds me of the Republicans. Delusional, unhinged, recently revealed family history of psychopathology. She never met a lie that she couldn't cosy up to or an alternative reality she couldn't inhabit. Evident hallucinations. My son and I, as well as friends and family, just sit back sometimes and marvel at the show, assuming she has hit bottom. But she plumbs ever new depths, suckers in new naives until they get their hands torched, meanwhile performing a figurative drive-by shooting on our lives with each episode. I see lots of parallels to the damage that the 20th century Republicans have inflicted on the country. [Have you seen The Economist's graph on stock market growth under Repub versus Dem presidents?] Point is, the circus only ends when they have immolated your life or theirs. I have started drinking -- it numbs the pain. [Tristan, I am buying up all the available stock from distillers, forget shares.] You guys might want to start priming yourselves.
- vst
October 10, 2012 at 1:03pm
Well, RP is the most non-Kool-Aid Dem around, so if he says we should chill, I tend to go along. It is interesting, of course, how we filter things. Sullivan, in his latest salvo, is talking about how Obama was goofing around on the day before the debates, instead of prepping. (Obama went to the Hoover Dam.) He quotes Obama as saying that there is an inherent laziness in him. He then asks whey he should invest in Obama if Obama does not give a damn himself, or too oblivious to give a damn. Tomasky goes so far as to say that Obama wants to lose. And all I can say is, good bloody grief. I start from the premise that here is the man we know: his singlemindedness, his capacity for strategic thinking, his ruthlessness, the amount of planning he has put into this (his campaign has been recruiting supporters and canvassers since December) ... is it more likely that he would rather "goof off" than "prep", or that he has had four years to "prep" and he, like Churchill and his painting, needs time off to regroup and think and rejuvenate? Was he listless and telegraphing his performance, or was he giving room to Romney, as he wove one lie after another, to entangle himself even more? (The Romney v. Romney snippet is already out.) This is a man who won the Democratic primaries before Hillary even knew what was going on - in the unreported Caucuses; is it a coincidence, then, that he is ahead in the swing states even as he falls "behind" in national polls? New Mexico and Nevada, for Heaven's sake, are not even swing states any more. Reflect on that. Unless the character of the man, and his entire team, somehow changed from one night to the other, it has to be assumed that part, at least, of what happened last week was planned. Overplayed, perhaps, and not quite thinking how even his own supporters would fail to "spin" or understand the game. But - I keep saying this: Romney has already forfeited the foreign policy speech. Obama will mention Iraq about 200 times. "Governor - troops in Syria? in Libya?" "Governor, you said there is to be no daylight between the US and our allies. Who gets to decide if America goes to war?" That is what everyone will remember - not Romney's "pivot".
- icarus-r
October 10, 2012 at 1:31pm
People talk a lot about business people in politics and how the CEO posture normally doesn't translate well into public office. Those who do it well are often the Mark Warners, who cultivate a solid entrepreneurial success and manage to use that kind of leadership style as a bridgehead to political life. Romney embodied something else in that first debate -- less the CEO style and more of a salesman-swagger deal that is about confusing the client with smoke and mirrors and basically reassuring them that everything will be fine just as soon as they put their signature on that dotted line. Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross is a close model. I think it is reasonably certain that while Obama planned to stay above the fray last week he was flummoxed by confronting the Romney who danced onto the stage and just cavorted around tossing candy bars to the audience even if they were exactly what he was telling everyone we could afford only a few days before. It's difficult to counter the guy who, every time you ask him a question about the contradictions between his statements and the facts, says "Relax pal, it's all good."
- ironyroad
October 10, 2012 at 1:51pm
Unless you are liberal partisan zealot, it is fairly obvious that both candidates are dishonest to to the same degree. Arguments to the contrary are rooted in the "my crap smells better" rational.
- Nicomachus
October 10, 2012 at 5:24pm
I think it was David Brooks who said recently that about a third of the damage from the debate was caused by O's performance, and two-thirds by hysterical Dems' reaction to it. If you're worried about this, volunteer to take some people to the polls with you.
- Robert Powell
October 11, 2012 at 4:07am
Nice post, Amy. As for what I hope to see in the next debate for the top spot, Maureen Dowd nailed it - skip the fancy footwork and just stick it right in Romney's face: "You're lying, Governor." Not a slander if it's true.
- wamba1
October 11, 2012 at 8:07am