Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
As we eagerly await tomorrow's presidential debate, I argue in the newest issue of National Review (I'll summarize here, because it's behind NR's paywall) that Obama's lackluster performance wasn't just a matter of style.
Conservatives have been focused too much on tactics over political philosophy. Strip away posture, tone, and facial expressions, and the remarkable feature of Obama’s time on the podium is how little he actually says. Obama brings up no new domestic policies for his second term. He proposes no new legislation, nor will he cut any unnecessary programs. Spending and taxes, it seems, will simply go on forever at their current rates. Somehow the deficit will magically disappear and the economy will fully recover.
The sound of Obama’s silence is not just a debate tactic. It derives from his misunderstanding of the presidency, and of the role of government itself. Consider first Obama’s confusion about the constitutional role of the president. In his first two years in office, Obama conducted himself more as a party leader than as a chief executive; more as a prime minister than as a president. He is silent because he cannot take credit for the Democratic majorities from 2008-10. Second, I argue that his silence is the result of the intellectual exhaustion of progressivism. Obama simply cannot defend progressivism's hostility to the Constitution and its effort to centralize power in the federal government and in unaccountable bureaucracies.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '12
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Well said. I always wonder what his campaign could possibly do to swing him in an upward momentum in the subsequent debates. Can one really win just on style alone? Isn't that the same as winning on Hope alone? They had time and an experienced debater - Joe Biden and their only strategy was lies and smirks. If I were Obama, I would rather go golfing, it might do less harm to his campaign.
Mar '11
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
I'll grant you that progressivism is and always has been intellectually exhausted. But is Obama really a progressive? I was always under the impression that progressivism subscribed to the notion of the "living" or "evolving" Constitution. His headlong rush into the exercise of executive power tells me that he's gone far beyond using the Constitution as even a fig leaf of justification.
Edited on October 15, 2012 at 10:04pmRe: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Great post. Scary to look at the presidential "powers" and bureaucratic entities he has simply added in, without bothering to justify same to the people or to seek approval of Congress.
Aug '10
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
I agree with your post, John, and would add that personality is an underlooked component in these debates as well.
Look, Obama is simply not a high energy in-your-face type of guy. If he tried to channel Newt Gingrich in the debate he would look very foolish and everyone would see that it was an act. Paul Ryan has a similar personality to Obama but is much brighter. Biden obviously has a confrontational personality but that doesn't play well with everyone.
Thankfully Mitt can turn up the energy in a friendly manner that lends itself well to debating. Of the four he definitely has the best mix of personality traits for debating.
Obama really is too cool for school and it shows in the debates...
Edited on October 15, 2012 at 9:44pmMay '10
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
The problem with progressive "ism" is that it has a benign sounding name. A naive bystander will tend to think it's a good thIng. We need a short catchy word or phrase to stigmatize it. Any suggestions?
Mar '11
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Ingsoc
Mar '11
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Marxist?
Aug '10
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Crapism?
Are-you-kidding-me -ism?
Progressives - "Just because we can't run our own lives doesn't mean we can't run yours"
Edited on October 15, 2012 at 10:10pmApr '11
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Regressive?
Oct '12
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Takeoverism?
Jun '10
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
He can, in quick soundbites, with no followup.
I can't find the video, but my memory is that a reporter said - in response to a statement about the need to raise tax rates - that lowering tax rates can mean greater income to the Government. Obama responded [approx] "That may be true, but this is more fair..." and walked away from the reporter in his famous "Let me eat my waffle" demeanor.
Why conservatives haven't picked that apart is beyond me.
Edited on October 15, 2012 at 10:33pmApr '11
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Obama is doing what he's been doing since day one, waiting for the economy to magically bounce back because, well, that's just what it does. It doesn't occur to him that there are certain policies that are conducive to growth. I don't think he even believed that his stimulus would work. He just hoped his policies would come at just the right time in the cycle to allow him to credit leftism with the expected recovery.
In an odd way progressives have even more faith in the market than conservatives. To them, it doesn't matter how much you interfere, somehow the market will be able to resist the blows.
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Eeyore
I can't find the video, but my memory is that a reporter said - in response to a statement about the need to raise tax rates - that lowering tax rates can mean greater income to the Government. Obama responded [approx] "That may be true, but this is more fair..." and walked away from the reporter in his famous "Let me eat my waffle" demeanor.
Why conservatives haven't picked that apart is beyond me. · 30 minutes ago
Edited 26 minutes ago
You may be thinking of this exchange with Charlie Gibson from the 2008 Democratic primary debates (apologies for the editing here -- it was the only reasonably intact version of the exchange I could find):
Jan '11
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Well, Obama hasn't been very creative for years. Ad Krauthammer says, Obama basically stopped governing right after the 2010 shellacking and has gone full-time into campaigning since (with time off for vacations, of course).
Obama hasn't solved the "incumbent's dilemma" - i.e., as the incumbent, you can't propose brand new programs for the second term, because people will immediately ask why the incumbent didn't propose them in the first term? Also, if you have a bunch of new things, doesn't that suggest that your first term needs improvement?
Unless you're creative about it, campaigning for the second term is often little more than stay-the-course. The problem comes when the first term's results aren't very good; staying with failure isn't an attractive and sexy theme.
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
John, don't you think that Obama's entire problem is wardrobe related ... there always seems to be something wrong with his suit, it's like there's something always missing ...
Jun '10
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Troy Senik, Ed.
Eeyore
I can't find the video, but my memory is that a reporter said - in response to a statement about the need to raise tax rates - that lowering tax rates can mean greater income to the Government. Obama responded [approx] "That may be true, but this is more fair..." and walked away from the reporter in his famous "Let me eat my waffle" demeanor.
Why conservatives haven't picked that apart is beyond me. · 30 minutes ago
Edited 26 minutes ago
You may be thinking of this exchange with Charlie Gibson from the 2008 Democratic primary debates (apologies for the editing here -- it was the only reasonably intact version of the exchange I could find):
Thanks, Troy. It does show that he's willing to stick to the madness in a fixed environment. The one I remember was probably from the campaign as well, and he was sort of running away from a reporter on the street.
Sep '11
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Troy Senik, Ed.
Eeyore
I can't find the video, but my memory is that a reporter said - in response to a statement about the need to raise tax rates - that lowering tax rates can mean greater income to the Government. Obama responded [approx] "That may be true, but this is more fair..." and walked away from the reporter in his famous "Let me eat my waffle" demeanor.
Why conservatives haven't picked that apart is beyond me. · 30 minutes ago
Edited 26 minutes ago
You may be thinking of this exchange with Charlie Gibson from the 2008 Democratic primary debates (apologies for the editing here -- it was the only reasonably intact version of the exchange I could find): · 54 minutes ago
I remember another one, in an interview, when the interviewer asked Obama, "What do you say to those who say that lowering tax rates raises revenue?" Obama answered, "It's not about revenue, it's about fairness."
I swear I heard/saw this, darn close to verbatim, but don't remember the interviewer and even at the time I was stunned that conservatives weren't making more hay with it.
Nov '10
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Well, it stigmatized itself the last time it was around (in the early part of the last century). So that the Left decided to call themselves "liberals" because "progressivism" was so unpopular. Now, of course, liberalism is unpopular because it stigmatized itself, so we're back to "progressivism."
Nov '10
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Maggie Somavilla
Troy Senik, Ed.
I remember another one, in an interview, when the interviewer asked Obama, "What do you say to those who say that lowering tax rates raises revenue?" Obama answered, "It's not about revenue, it's about fairness."
I swear I heard/saw this, darn close to verbatim, but don't remember the interviewer and even at the time I was stunned that conservatives weren't making more hay with it. ·
Yes. There was such a video, but I can't find it either any more. And far be it from me to violate the CoC with respect to conspiracy theories, but I did manage to find a link on which someone said that he had found a number of the sites where that interview video had once been posted, and that the sites all said that the video had been taken down by the user. I am trying, really really hard to come up with a non-conspiracy-style explanation for that.
Jun '12
Re: Obama's Debate Silence Speaks Volumes
Statism.