Middle Management (Veep debate)

[Epitome22]

Middle Management

by Andrew Sullivan

It's hard to read the varied responses to last night's veep debate without wondering whether the political polarization in this country hasn't warped everyone's minds. Here's Will Saletan at Slate, arguing, in the words of the headline, that Edwards "cleaned Cheney's clock." Here's National Review's Jim Geraghty: "My initial conclusion: This was the single most devastating one-sided drubbing since Lloyd Bentsen smacked Dan Quayle all around the stage in 1988." My first response: "If last Thursday night's debate was an assisted suicide for president Bush, this debate--just concluded--was a car wreck. And Cheney was roadkill. There were times when it was so overwhelming a debate victory for Edwards that I had to look away." David Frum called the debate "manslaughter" and described Edwards as looking like "a puppy that just has not got the strength to survive." What gives?

Here's my best shot. Inevitably, at this stage of the game, especially after the wild swings of the race in the last month or so, people are getting committed to seeing their side win. Bias undoubtedly affects judgment. My deep disenchantment with Bush doubtless contributed unconsciously to my feeling that Edwards won. And vice-versa with some die-hard Republicans. But most of the people actually rooting for one side or the other are not the people who will decide the election. Those people are undecideds. And for them, it seems to me, the debate wasn't even close: Edwards won.

On style, first of all. Cheney's responses--which delighted many pundits and conservatives--were indirect, full of abstract nouns, consumed with process, and often delivered with his hands crossed against his chest defensively. He rarely looked directly at Edwards or the audience. Here's an example. It occurred when moderator Gwen Ifill asked Cheney about jobs and poverty:

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, the Census Bureau ranks Cleveland as the biggest poor city in the country: thirty-one percent jobless rate. You two gentlemen are pretty well off. You did well for yourselves in the private sector. What can you tell the people of Cleveland or people of cities like Cleveland that your administration will do to better their lives?

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, there are several things that I think need to be done and are being done. We've of course been through a difficult recession and then the aftermath of 9/11 where we lost over a million jobs after that attack. We think the key is to address some basic fundamental issues that the president's already working on.

I think probably the most successful thing we can do with respect to ending poverty is to get people jobs. There is no better antidote to poverty than a good well-paying job that allows somebody to take care of their own family. To do that we have to make America the best place in the world to do business. And that means we've got to deal effectively with tax policy. We've got to reduce the litigation costs that are built into our society. We've got to provide adequate medical care. And make certain that we can in fact create the opportunities that are vital to that process. I zero in, in particular, on education. ...

Cheney's answer is certainly intellectually coherent. Conservatives do not believe that the government can "create" jobs; they believe that it can only provide the conditions in which the private sector generates wealth. But notice that Ifill asks Cheney to direct his answer to the people of Cleveland, a depressed city in a swing state. He can't. Notice that his immediate answer is an excuse. Then his answer to the problem of joblessness is to say that we need more jobs! Then he refers to tax cuts, before finally moving on to education. If you agree with him (and I do), it makes sense. But it's an ineffective way of communicating empathy, clarity, and concision.

Now take Edwards's response to the same question:

IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have ninety seconds.

EDWARDS: Wasn't your question was about jobs?

IFILL: It was about jobs and it was about poverty.

EDWARDS: I thought it was about jobs and poverty. I hope we get a chance to talk about education, but that's what the vice president talked about. Here's what's happening: In the time that they have been in office, in the last four years, 1.6 million private sector jobs have been lost, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. And it's had real consequences in places like Cleveland. Cleveland's a wonderful, distinguished city that's done a lot of great things. But it has the highest poverty rate in the country. One out of almost two children in Cleveland are now living in poverty.

During the time that the vice president and the president have been in office, four million more Americans have fallen into poverty. And the most striking and startling thing is they are the first presidency in seventy years--and I'm talking Democrats, Republicans, presidents who led us through world war, through the Korean War, the Vietnam War, cold war, every one of them created jobs until this president.

We have to do better. We have a plan. We're going to get rid of tax--by the way, they're for outsourcing jobs. I want to make sure people hear that. It's a fundamental difference with us. The administration says over and over that the outsourcing of millions of American jobs is good. We're against it. We want to get rid of tax cuts for companies sending jobs overseas. We want to balance this budget, get back to fiscal responsibility. And we want to invest in the creative, innovative jobs of the future.

I should say that I tend to agree with Cheney on the substance, but look how differently they responded. Immediately, Edwards relates the question to the people of Cleveland. He talks about children living in poverty. He talks about real places and real people. And he provides a devastating account of the last four years--in the context of American history--that Cheney never rebuts. Then he segues into his own plan and hits a populist note. In terms of debating skill, it's not a close contest. Edwards wins hands down.

Take another critical issue: the management of the war in Iraq, and the troop level question. This is a hugely important matter relating to the conduct of the Iraq occupation. It was the first question. Cheney didn't answer it, preferring instead to make a broad defense of the administration's war philosophy. Again, his answer makes sense, and was coherent. But it avoided the question. Edwards immediately seized on that mistake:

Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people. I mean the reality you and George Bush continue to tell people--first, that things are going well in Iraq. The American people don't need us to explain this to them. They see it on their television every single day. We lost more troops in September than we lost in August, lost more in August than we lost in July, lost more in July than we lost in June. The truth is our men and women in uniform have been heroic. Our military has done everything they've been asked to do.

And it's not just me that sees the mess in Iraq. There are Republican leaders like John McCain, like Richard Lugar, like Chuck Hagel who have said Iraq is a mess and it's getting worse. And when they were asked why, Richard Lugar said because of the incompetence of the administration. What Paul Bremer said yesterday is they didn't have enough troops to secure the country. They also didn't have a plan to win the peace. They also didn't put the alliances together to make this successful.

Again, Edwards addresses the actual question, explains his position in simple language, invokes Republicans to support him, and focuses on the management of the war. What does Cheney do then? Over to the veep:

We've made significant progress in Iraq. We've stood up a new government that's been in power now only 90 days. The notion of additional troops is talked about frequently. But the point of success in Iraq will be reached when we have turned governance over to the Iraqi people, they've been able to establish a democratic government. They're well on their way to doing that. They'll have free elections next January for the first time in history. We also are actively, rapidly training Iraqis to take on the security responsibility. Those two steps are crucial to success in Iraq. They're well in hand, well under way. And I'm confident that in fact we'll get the job done.

If you already have complete confidence in Cheney's war management, this is convincing. If you're worried about chaos in Iraq, it is disturbing. Cheney doesn't address the issue of disorder or violence or insecurity in Iraq. He merely talks about a new government and training of Iraqi troops. But even then, he doesn't give us anything concrete. His reassurance is a bland: "They're well in hand, well under way. And I'm confident that in fact we'll get the job done." If everything had gone well in Iraq, this might work. But as undecided voters ask themselves whether Cheney has a handle on unrest in that country, they have little to go on except Cheney's avuncular authority. Again, in terms of debating skill, Edwards is way ahead.

Moreover, Cheney's negative attacks on Edwards seemed bitter and nasty. If you want to persuade undecided voters, you do not tell someone to his face that his record is undistinguished or that he's been AWOL in the Senate. You make those points indirectly, so that you don't seem rude. There were times when Cheney seemed to go out of his way to be offensive. To say that Edwards demeans the contribution of Iraqi soldiers in defense of their fledgling government, when Edwards had merely talked about the American share of coalition casualties, seemed arbitrarily aggressive and unnecessarily bitter to me. Bush, in contrast, is great at this, rarely directly attacking another candidate to his face. Edwards was more Bush-like in his response to the question of Cheney's stance on marriage rights for gays, and by managing to compliment Cheney, seemed the more gracious of the two. Edwards was also the only one to concede that he agreed with his opponent in some respects--on Afghanistan and on the abuse of medical malpractice liability. That also made him look the bigger and more reasonable character. Cheney made no overtures in response. He seemed therefore more defensive and ornery than his opponent. Again, if you're on Cheney's side and want to see him take some flesh out of his opponent, you will have loved the performance. If you're neutral or wavering or undecided, your sympathies are with Edwards.

Maybe, of course, we're all hopelessly biased--and debates are so subjective as to make objective analysis impossible. Maybe my initial unfiltered response was distorted by my expectation that Cheney would win easily, by my watching the debate with a bunch of college students, or by what I'd eaten beforehand. But in the critical battle for the middle ground in this election, it seems to me indisputable that Edwards gained territory for Kerry last night. Will it matter? Probably not. Should it? Absolutely. Will we ever find out for sure? Here's hoping.

[dalmations202]

Maybe, of course, we're all hopelessly biased--and debates are so subjective as to make objective analysis impossible.

The most true statement I have read in a while. Especially where the media is concerned, along with at least 70% of Americans today.