presidential debate #1

There are many things I could say, but I will restrict myself to four.

1. Why the hell wasn't I invited?

2. In the "rational argument" sense, Obama won by a significant margin. (Actually, I think there are even multiple ways of evaluating in an "rational argument" sense, but since I think what I say holds for all of those, I won't take the time to distinguish.)

I don't have anywhere near the time to give a line by line commentary on the transcript in defense of my claim. But here is a very helpful illustration. McCain spent a lot of his time (time he could've spent in the service of rational argument) talking about how he has seen the mountains of Pakistan, seen a poster of Putin labelled "Our President" in Georgia, etc. However, as I hope a moment's thought will make obvious, such things do nothing to make it the case that McCain is better able to deal with foreign-policy issues (such as those concerning Pakistan and Georgia).

You might think that the point here was his greater experience; after all, McCain also mentioned having talked to so-and-so high-level political figure of Pakistan. (Though, in fact, if you pay close attention to how he was saying these things, I think it was pretty clear that the primary message he was usually intending to convey with such remarks was simply that he had been to these places. It was in other comments that the primary message was his experience.) But, look, by far the most important thing we want in a president when it comes to these foreign-policy issues is the setting up of the proper middle-level goals, and what is needed for that is:
A. the proper high-level moral and national-interest goals, and
B. intellectual grasp of the relevant facts
(most importantly, the extremely various kinds of facts
which determine how other political leaders will make
choices in the face of various sets of circumstances).
Having seen the mountains of Pakistan, or even having talked so-and-so high-level leader of Pakistan, does nothing to make McCain better in these respects.

(This very much relates to a point that Obama has made many times, namely, that what we most directly wanted a president is judgment, not experience - a point that is surely right. And he frequently notes that, not only is experience far from a sure means to judgment, there are other ways to acquire judgment - another point that, once you take a moment to think about it, is obviously right.)

Of course, that's not all of it. We also want a president who is skilled in diplomacy and deal-brokering. However, a lot of that involves more general skills of articulation, dealing with opposing forces with different views, etc., and it is entirely clear that Obama has proven himself in these respects throughout his campaign (indeed, proven himself better than McCain). Some of it, however, surely has to do with more narrow skills having to do with how to manage the particular situation of one-on-one conversation with another high-level political leader, how to deal with their egos, etc. In this respect, McCain does have more experience, and it does make it somewhat more likely he will, in this particular respect (at least at the outset), be better than Obama at this sort of thing. (However, it makes it far from certain, since some people don't learn from experience, and since McCain's actual experience with such things is frequently exaggerated).

This is not, of course, to say that McCain didn't win (in the "rational argument" sense) on a few points here and there. And it's also not to say that McCain's goal even was to win in the "rational argument" sense. He is aiming for a different kind of voter, one who is (statistically speaking) more likely to be swayed by things other than rational argument (and instead more by things like references to Ronald Reagan and exclamations about the greatness of America).

3. Even if McCain's main goal in the debate were to win in the "rational argument" sense, he almost surely still would have lost. But, what I want to note here, is that such a fact is far from ideal evidence that Obama would be a better president.

Winning, even in the "rational argument" sense, in a one-on-one debate in such a specialized forum involves some narrow skills that probably are not relevant that often when it comes to the various tasks and activities of being president. I have made quite clear in other blog entries that I think a high level of general thinking skills is extremely important in the president. However, having such skills is far from sufficient for succeeding in debate in the "rational argument" sense.

For just one example, succeeding in debate in this sense requires the skill of being able to pay careful attention to, and be sensitive to, very short amounts of time while also talking (such as making sure you don't waste all of your two minutes responding only to the first of those three points that your opponent just made). But when it comes to any important decision a president has to make, there is always much more than two minutes to do so (and so much more than two minutes to review the relevant reasons); and so it really matters very little whether the president is prone to get distracted and spend a few more minutes (or even hours) than is really necessary (or better: appropriate, given other pressing matters) on some particular point. (Though there is a limit to this, which is how we can construe one point Obama was making. If you let Iraq almost completely distract you from other foreign-policy issues for seven years, some undesirable things are likely to happen - as they in fact did.)

4. It really really really annoyed me when very near the end of the debate, McCain charged Obama with "parsing words" when Obama was simply trying to make a certain distinction necessary to careful thinking. Even though perhaps sometimes politically wise in the "campaign strategy" sense (at least on the conservative right), it drives me nuts when a candidate appeals to the anti-intellectual, anti-careful-thinking element of the voting populace.