American presidential debate 2012
By R M Austin
After the first debate in Denver, Colorado about two weeks ago, the supporters of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party were in a state which could only be described as mourning. Many thought the first African-American President had given the game away by his uninspiring performance. I saw the effect this had on his supporters and admirers I know best: the members of the Caribbean Diaspora. The Guyanese, in particular, seemed to take it hard. Many were the phone calls and e-mails I received, seeking to find out why Obama had been unable to put the elections beyond Governor Mitt Romney’s reach by turning in a good showing at the debate in Colorado. And when Romney, in the following days and weeks, seemed rampant in the polls, many of my most respected friends and colleagues, some of whom are well known Guyanese politicians, were prepared to write Obama’s political epitaph. But as things turned out at Hofstra University last Tuesday evening, all the talk of Obama’s political demise was greatly exaggerated.
Anyone who has read Obama’s books, especially The Audacity of Hope, would recognise that he is a very competitive politician. And the person who appeared on stage with Romney last Tuesday evening was not only competitive, but was positively determined to make his case for four more years in the White House. Even though the evening began with Romney fielding the first question (unlike the first debate questions were asked by undecided voters in the audience) Obama demonstrated that he was in combative mood. He was clearly better prepared and willing to counter Romney’s tactics of taking most of the time allotted for questions or interrupting the moderator. At critical moments in the debate, Obama pointed out that Romney was running over time or insisted on his right to have equal time. This was Obama transformed.
In this mood, Obama did not hesitate to defend his record on jobs, bailing out the auto-industry, bringing down unemployment, immigration, education, women’s issues, and his foreign policy, among other questions. Above all things, he warned the American people that they should not go back to past policies which brought the economy to the brink of destruction. And it was on the issue of Libya that one saw how determined Obama was to leave the impression that, unlike the last debate, he is the Commander-in-Chief.
Romney’s camp was clearly intent on proving that Obama was vulnerable on the Libyan imbroglio. They had signalled their intention by harping on this question in the press. But President Obama and his team were clearly paying attention. When this matter came up as a result of a question from the audience, therefore, Romney pounced. Obama was accused of misleading the American people and failing to show leadership, a mantra from the Republican playbook. Obama answered decisively. Obama said the idea that anyone in his administration would play politics with the lives of Americans who had given their lives in Libya was “offensive”. Romney tried the response that it took almost 14 days to respond to events in Libya. Obama denied this. Romney wanted the denial on the record, believing that he had caught Obama in an evasion or an untruth. When the moderator, Candy Crawley of CNN, indicated that the President was correct, Romney seemed deflated.
In my judgement, this was the turning point in the debate. Romney seemed defeated after this. I believe this situation was responsible for what I regard as serious mistakes on Romney’s part. It was strange to hear him pointedly distancing himself from former President Bush; it was a misjudgment which could hurt him with his own base. Towards the end of the debate, Romney gave Obama the opening to remind the American electorate of his dismissal of 47% of the electorate as unworthy of his attention. This, too, was a signal that inspiration had deserted him and that he was now decidedly on the losing side of the debate. As one commentator graphically put it, Romney stuck his chin out for Obama to deliver his “knockout” punch.
However, for most of the early part of the debate Romney gave as much as he got. Seemingly as energised and as feisty as President Obama, Romney spoke impressively about the failures of the Obama administration, as he saw them. His central theme, a rehash really of his ‘stump’ speech, was that Obama had failed to re-ignite the economy. Trotting out well- known statistics, he sought to emphasise the failure of the Obama administration to provide jobs for the many Americans, who are currently unemployed. In particular, Romney highlighted the fact that President Obama had not kept the promises he had made as a candidate. But Romney faced a major difficulty on this occasion. In Denver his claims and assertions were not challenged by a disengaged and seemingly uninterested Barack Obama. On this occasion he was not let off the hook.
When challenged, Romney, in my opinion, had trouble describing his five-point plan to rescue the economy. Obama tartly described this five- point plan as a “one point plan”, one of his many successes for the evening. It was decidedly not a case where Romney set out his views and aims without matching efforts from Obama. Maybe it was because he was not having things as he wished that at times he appeared petulant and rude. The many talkative commentators seem to have ignored the fact that on the last occasion, Romney won the last debate because, among other things, he was able to get his own way. In fact, he was given leeway to speak two times on each issue in comparison to Obama who mostly managed a single response.
There is a young commentator by the name of Chris Hayes, who has made a study of American elites. He gave the best analysis of Romney’s behaviour on Tuesday evening. He referred to the fact that the American elites have been long accustomed to getting their own way in American society by breaking the rules whether it is taxes or the other rules by which the average citizen is bound. Romney as a member of this elite brought the same attitude to the debates. On Tuesday night he broke all of the rules of the debate by asking Obama questions directly and interrupting him repeatedly. Both actions were prohibited by the rules of the debate. But he did not get away with it. Seemingly, this placed him at a disadvantage.
There is one more debate left. It will be held in Florida in a few days and will deal with foreign policy. I do not think that this clash between the two men will matter much. From here on, the question will be if either one of them can convince that sliver of undecided voters to make up their minds on their behalf. Whoever succeeds at winning the approval of the undecided voters will win this very close election.
