by hilzoy
Last night, the fact that Obama said that McCain was right on several occasions caused consternation among some liberals, and great rejoicing on the right. I didn’t agree. It would have been one thing had Obama not also been willing to say, forcefully, that he thought McCain was wrong. But he was, and usually his acknowledgement that McCain was right on some point was the preface to an explanation of why he was wrong on another.
In that context, the fact that Obama was willing to acknowledge those points where he agreed with McCain struck me as gracious, not weak. As Pat Lang said: “
“There will be those, like the oaf Chris Matthews, who will think that McCain’s attitude shows him to be a leader. I think it shows that he was not raised well. His refusal to look at Obama throughout the debate, his dismissive tone of voice when continually speaking of Obama in the third person as though he were not there, his inability to say anything good about his opponent, all showed him to be a natural bully or someone who has been taught to be a bully.”
I wasn’t sure whether McCain would come off this way to anyone other than myself, but he seems to have.
Nonetheless, the McCain campaign seems to think that pointing out the occasions when Obama said that McCain was right is a winning strategy. I think this is wrong, not only for the reasons I mentioned, but because it undercuts one of McCain’s main lines of argument: that he is willing to reach across the aisle and work for bipartisan solutions, whereas Obama is not.
Think about it: McCain couldn’t even bring himself to look at Obama. He was consistently contemptuous and dismissive. And now he has released an ad that takes Obama’s willingness to acknowledge that his opponents are right to be the sort of thing that’s worth attacking him for.
McCain claims that he can truly reach out to his opponents and work with them, while Obama cannot. It’s hard for me to think that his performance in this debate didn’t seriously undermine that claim.
When Hilzoy and retired Col. Pat Lang agree, you know the world has moved.
They had a big brawl in the cabinet room, I read. Johnny started it. I think Bush hid behind the curtain.
John Cole at Balloon Juice has a great analysis of Obama’s ‘agreements’ with McCain. Simply put, Obama debates like a gentleman, being respectful but still hitting hard. He ‘agrees’ only to draw contrast. But you should really just let John explain it, he’s way better than me.
John Cole absolutely nails it on this topic
I must say that, present company excepted, having John Cole on the side of the angels and being able to read commentary like this is the best consolation I have for not having Molly Ivins and Hunter S. Thompson around anymore to help steer us through the madness of this campaign.
MeDrewNotYou,
OK, is this what it feels like when two women show up at a party both wearing the same dress?
It could be worse. We could’ve both shown up naked or something. ^.^;
Not that he isn’t an oaf, but Matthews does seem to be pretty negative on McCain for not looking at Obama.
I’m just glad you guys found Cole’s post so I didn’t have to write it up myself. He said exactly what I tried to say on another blog — one where righties were calling Obama’s “you’re right” moments errors.
No, not errors at all.
Off to link to both this post and Cole’s.
Also, the McCain web ad makes no sense. So because Obama agrees with McCain sometimes and acknowledges those agreements, he’s not ready to lead? Well, McCain agrees with McCain even more of the time, so he must be really unready to lead
“When Hilzoy and retired Col. Pat Lang agree, you know the world has moved.”
Well, I think it moved years ago. As best I can tell from occasional visits, Col. Lang is a conservative, but a real one with actual principles that he believes in, so it’s not surprising that he and hilzoy see eye-to-eye when it comes to people like Bush, McCain, and Palin.
I agree with all of John Cole’s points, and I’d like to add another.
In a debate, conceding a point your opponent makes can be a simple way to move the discussion from that point, to one that you prefer to discuss. It effectively ends the discussion on your opponent’s point.
McCain says the problem in the financial markets is a lack of responsibility. Does Obama want to argue that point? No, so he simply concedes it, and moves on to the issue of lax regulation.
McCain says the earmark process has been abused. Does Obama want to argue against that? No, so he concedes it, and moves on point out that there are bigger fish to fry.
Etc.
It’s rhetorical judo. The force is strong in this one.
Thanks –
I noticed the difference between the two candidates quickly and so starting a count: how many times did each candidate say something denigratory or dismissive about the other; and how many times did each candidate say something conciliatory or complimentary towards the other. Mr. McCain got six hash marks in the denigratory column and none in the conciliatory column. Mr. Obama got six hash marks in the conciliatory column and none in the denigratory column. I was surprised at the starkness of the difference. But it clearly shows who really will be able to reach across the aisle to the other side and work something out.
Long ago, I came across a New Yorker cartoon from the 1920s or 30s. I wish I could post it or link to it; let me just describe it, poorly.
1st panel — An empty stage, a podium on each side, with an easel in the middle displaying a big sign announcing “Debate tonight: Mozart greater than Beethoven. Pro:Doctor Drednich. Con:Professor Himmelsein.”
2nd panel — Goateed Doctor D. at left podium harangues and gesticulates; monocled Prof. H. rubs chin.
3rd panel — Prof. H. expounds; Doctor D. looks deeply thoughtful.
4th panel — reprise of the first panel, with the names reversed.
Well, ya hadda be there. But the proposition that debaters can be so persuasive as to simlutaneously convince each other struck me as funny at the time. And, of course, the notion that the point of a “debate” is to persuade your opponent is meta-absurd.
Still, we like to think that reason has something to do with debate. If our opponent is “wrong” about his conclusion, it may be due to faulty logic, not faulty premises. Granting that he has the premises right (“John is correct that 2+2=4”) and then showing where his logic goes wrong (“But he divides by zero in step two”) is the way sane people explain to other sane people that the opponent’s conclusion (e.g. “2=1” or “Tax cuts increase government revenues”) is mistaken. Mentally unhealthy debaters try to carry the day by claiming their opponent is “naive”, or “unready”.
Truly despicable people pretend that argument is merely a forceful statement of premises masquerading as conclusions, so if their opponent accepts their premises he has lost the argument. “Obama concedes that both Mozart and Beethoven were great composers! What a wimp!!” Now that’s funny.
–TP
Also note that if all the armchair psychoanalysis of McCain is right, he may have found reasonableness from Obama more aggravating than undiluted disagreement. But yeah, this was a weird thing for the R’s to try to exploit or the D’s to lament. Given how much time McCain spent throwing out flurries of accusations, so many that Obama could never have replied to them all effectively in the time alotted even if he’d been so inclined, I’d have thought some of that action would be seen as the most potentially damaging. Or, alternatively, that Kissinger would be hauled out to all available venues to do what he has long been known to do best: lie, and lie gravely using his deep voice. Although as I haven’t seen much news maybe the latter is indeed happening.
Also, the McCain web ad makes no sense. So because Obama agrees with McCain sometimes and acknowledges those agreements, he’s not ready to lead?
I agree, it seems like a minor thing, but the fact that the McCain camp has jumped on the “I agree” issue as their main follow-up to the debate suggests to me that they have really lost their bearings. Who on Earth is going to be swayed by that? It’s an entirely pointless ad that might at best give people who are already solid McCain fans something to chuckle over.
Also during the debate, McCain pushing his anti-earmark theme so hard was another huge waste of time for him. Nobody really cares, especially when there are much more pressing economic/governance issues at hand. Even when Obama disarmed that attack, he pressed on, and seemed gratified that he was making his point even though it surely gained him little at all and made him seem well out of touch with current economic concerns.
I also though his “no preconditions to talk to teh evil” obsession was self-defeating. There was surely a dishonest point to be scored there, but by persevering on ramming it home he simply pulled the curtain back on the contrived game that is the presidential foreign policy debate, and made himself look cheap.
Obama seems to have scored better than I thought from the event in any case, which restores my faith a little bit in the public and bolsters even more my faith that he and his team have a solid game plan and always know what demographic they are targeting even when the point is lost on me.
McCain indulged in an orgy of self-love, probably losing women and swing voters for good in the process, but thinks he did ok because the people who were already going to vote for him loved it. We’ll see if the polls in the next few days bear this out, but he might have squandered his last chance here.
No matter what, it is still a weak debate technique, and certainly not useful to the extent Obama did it.
For everyone of those “I agree” moments, I could write a better script for Obama — hell, a better script that still makes use of an “I agree” type logic.
What is true is that it is not an “error” or “gaffe,” and it does have some mild positives as noted above. Its negative is that done too often, it projects weakness. There is still no reason for Obama to do it as often and as casually as he did it during the debate.
For example — “I agree with John on the problem, but what we disagree on, and what matters, is the right solution.”
As another point, what was without a doubt the most effective moment during the debate was Obama’s litany of “You were wrong” concerning Iraq. But consider this — it has more power because Obama is more reserved about how and when he fires that cannon. But it still does not require gratuitous “I agrees” — there are simply better verbal techniques for doing the same thing.
dmbeaster, I strongly disagree. It was the combination of agreement and disagreement that made Obama seem moderate and thoughtful, and McCain look disagreeable and impulsive.
The tactic is especially useful in the context of the FP debate, which is perhaps more removed from substance than any of the other issues. Whatever the question, “Iran” is your prompt to swear to sacrifice your first born for Israel if asked. “Afghanistan” is your prompt to hunt down Bin Laden. Sadly, “Russia” now seems to be your prompt to swear undying fealty to that Norway of the Caucasus, Georgia, and for bonus points, you should point out how reprehensible it is that oil rich states like Russia and the Middle Eastern countries dare demand payment for their natural resources.
Thus, when your opponent has just paid homage to whatever the trap issue in question is, you agree unambiguously before anything else you say, because any degree of nuance will be pounced on as cowardice in the face of Mordor.
CNN’s poll has Obama with a big win on the debate. The only point McCain really won on willingness to attack his opponent. By hammering Obama on the Surge, which is small fry compared to the decision to go to war, Obama has actually moved into the lead on whom people think will be better on Iraq. People, including independents and moderates, thought Obama was just plain more likeable.
I would add that this is a subpart of a larger tactic used throughout the Obama campaign, and with which I disagree. This is the constant refrain that “he is honorable, but…” Or the phraseology from the convention speech,
I don’t believe that Senator McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn’t know.
* * *
It’s not because John McCain doesn’t care. It’s because John McCain doesn’t get it.
There is absolutely no reason to use the set-up line in this manner, and it does not make the conclusion stronger. The point is that when words come out of your mouth that needlessly commend your opponent, its build him up no matter what else you say. It has the effect of suggesting an admission that McCain does care, he just has it temporarily wrong. It undercuts the whole argument that McCain is tempermentally less suited to be president — how can you effectively make that argument when your own rhetoric suggests he cares? Far better is to make the point he does not get it, and you genuinely don’t know why he does not get it. Don’t intentionally exclude “not caring” from the possible reasons that the listener may accept.
You can make the same point and not be overly harsh with a phrase such as “sadly, John McCain just does not get it.” Your message should be clear that he is out of touch, not that he is a good guy but just temporarily got it wrong. You cannot afford your own precious time with your audience to do anything that builds up your opponent in this gratuitous manner.
bryninghman:
My point is NOT that it is never effective, or that every time Obama did it was bad. My point is that he overuses it and also uses it needlessly. Can it be effective to agree and then counterattack? Without question, but if you were to list all of the moments he did this, and then think about how effective it was overall, I argue that he is not doing his best. He is better off using better judgment about when to premise an argument around an admission.
Frankly, I was a little surprised that his debate speech techniques were significantly weaker than his convention speech. I had not watched the primary debates much, so apparently this is nothing new.
People, including independents and moderates, thought Obama was just plain more likeable.
And in an electorate where “who is more likable” is generally more important than issues, that’s no small thing.
I was also pleased to hear Obama speak not only in complete sentences, but in compound sentences. He sounded like an aware, thinking adult.
McCain… didn’t. He sounded like someone who kept losing track of the point he wanted to make. He sounded, at times, like a failing stand-up comic floundering to find the sure laugh-line. And when he criticized Obama for not supporting the surge, or for not going to Afghanistan, using that high-pitched incredulous tone of voice, he reminded me of nothing so much as an angry parent trying to publicly humiliate a child.
I, too, would have liked to see Obama land a few more hard shots. But I agree that Obama wasn’t trying to reach people like me, who are absolutely going to vote for him, but people who are still making up their minds.
So he came across as reasonable, reachable, and likable. Looks like win to me.
I’d just like to say that Byrningman’s 4:18 comment was awesome.
John Cole makes the point that I would have about these “points of agreement”; I’d only add that conceding an opponent’s point in order to set up an argument against him has a name in rhetoric: synchoresis. It’s kind of the rhetorical equivalent of the rope-a-dope, and it’s singularly appropriate that Obama uses it. After all, he is the Muhammad Ali of American politics; maneuvering his opponent into beating him- (or her-)self up is his specialty, remember?
I don’t know who this Pat Lang is but Chris Matthews takes enough flak without bloggers writing untruths.
Matthews thought the outward contempt McCain showed for Obama was rude, ignorant and wrong. He said this many, many times last night.
Matthews also thought Obama won the debate.
He thought McCain lost it.
It’s easy to take swipes at crazy Chris Matthews but I’d say he is just as objective as your average blogger, if not more so.
Hilzoy: “Think about it: McCain couldn’t even bring himself to look at Obama.”
In fact, Chris Matthews was the only person I’ve seen so far who noted that McCain basically used the same technique in the primary debates against Mitt Romney.
McCain showed real contempt for Romney. He showed real contempt for Obama.
As Matthews said, his style of debating, campaigning, fighting is to make it personal against such an adversary.
Like Matthews, I think it makes McCain look petty and juvenile. But I think it’s good analysis from the MSNBC whack-job.
Oh, no. Here comes the Serious Analysis’ spin. Finneman: “On debating points–and if campaigns are boxing–McCain won. He was the sneering aggressor. He had Obama backpedaling for much of the night on foreign policy. Obama, for his part, missed several chances to counterattack, especially on the economy. Obama’s answers were strewn with annoying “ums” and “ahs” as he played for time to calibrate the least-damaging response.” To the heavily invested MSM, Obama was a the weak newcomer defeated in hand to hand combat by the experienced fighter pilot jock top gun knife fighter POW war hero. Fineman approves of “sneering aggressors” as president. They’re more fun.
To his great credit, Matthews also made the point that getting more soldiers killed in order to “honor” the ones already dead is obscene. And Matthews made clear that it’s McCain who pushes that obscenity.
Matthews drives me nuts half the time, but he makes up for it once in a while.
–TP
Pat Lang’s point was also picked up in a post last week by Teresa Hill, Ky Trip Report: That black man, somebody raised him right:
(the highest compliment is “hard worker”, and only manual laborers need apply.)
I’m going to also cite chiri, in Ok, I got it, decency is the core foundation:
McCain showed real contempt for Romney. He showed real contempt for Obama.
The difference is that no one likes Mitt Romney, so it was effective then.
I also think that dmbeaster hasn’t been watching the whole campaign. He may not like Obama’s tactics, but all the evidence suggests that they work. Don’t project what you want to see onto the rest of the electorate. My guess is that Obama and his people have a lot better idea what that is than you do.
On debating points–and if campaigns are boxing–McCain won. He was the sneering aggressor. He had Obama backpedaling for much of the night on foreign policy
What that analysis doesn’t consider is that McCain failed to land a killing blow. McCain would have been forgiven for being a jerk if he’d nailed Obama on something, but he didn’t, so he was just a jerk. And there is a great opportunity cost for him for not spending that time weaving his own narrative other than implying he saw the War of 1812 coming, which is probably self-defeating.
Obama’s was the easier task – not to get skewered – but at the same time any perceived errors would be hugely exaggerated. Imagine Obama had spoken about Spain the way McCain did, example.
In fact, Obama did much better than just not making a big error, and his surprisingly good reviews I think reflect the fact that you could hear the punditry waiting with baited breath to fall off the trapeze.
I’d just like to say that Byrningman’s 4:18 comment was awesome.
Cheers! I’d just like to say that your comment of 4:44 was very insightful!
I think we’ve revealed something fundamental about people in their reactions to Mr. Obama’s “Senator McCain is absolutely right…” comments. One group (including McCain and the conservatives) regard this as a sign of weakness. The other group sees it as a sign of mental maturity. Obviously, I’m in the latter group. But the notion that people would respect a man for being aggressive and chide a man for being agreeable is frightening to me. It suggests that these people approach the entire world as a battleground. And when all you see is war, that’s what you end up getting.
Chris Crawford: yeah.
When I was writing this, I thought of the year I went on the job market, when the professor who was advising us said: Remember, the idea is not to score points. It’s to convince people that you’d be a great person to be around for seven years.
And that really struck me. — Job interviews in philosophy involve a lot of philosophy questions, in which people probe to see how you argue, and what you think. As I thought about it, I realized that I knew a lot of people who assumed that they should approach this as though they were hockey goalies: trying not to let a single puck in the goal, no matter what, even if the padding and masks it took to do this made them look inhuman. Don’t let a single point be scored against you!
I had always felt that there was something all wrong about this, and when this professor said what he did, I suddenly got it. The objective is not to win debating points. It’s certainly not (in phil. job interviews) never ever to admit uncertainty, etc. It’s to convince people that they want to hire you.
Some people might want to hire the most hyperaggressive person, or the one who most resembles a hockey goalie. But most people are looking for something else.
Likewise here, I think. But just as it’s easy to assume that job interviews are about points, it’s easy to assume that debates are. But it’s wrong, I think.
I thought of the year I went on the job market, when the professor who was advising us said: Remember, the idea is not to score points. It’s to convince people that you’d be a great person to be around for seven years.
That’s incredibly useful advice to me right now – I’m going to channel Obama, not McCain, in my interviews (if I have any). When stumped, I’ll fall back on my call for change in the academy…