As a supporter of Obama – Biden, I found the debate last night soothing. Biden performed well, better than Ryan. From my partisan point of view, it was a good night. After the first Obama – Romney debate, I had a hard time sleeping. Last night, I slept like a baby.
In form and substance, I think Biden was convincing, presenting passionately and clearly the case for re-election, providing Obama a proper introduction for a debate comeback. The contrasting approaches to the practical challenges of our times were on clear view and, I believe, Biden made the Democrats approach more cogent, while Ryan was not able to overcome the contradictions of the conservative Romney-Ryan approach.
First form: Republicans are in convinced. Biden was boorish, Gore – like, patronizing rude. Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard summarizes their judgment: “You don’t win a nationally televised debate by being rude and obnoxious. You don’t win by interrupting your opponent time after time after time or by being a blowhard. You don’t win with facial expressions, especially smirks or fake laughs, or by pretending to be utterly exasperated with what your opponent is saying.”
Indeed Biden was highly expressive. He interrupted Ryan. He smiled, laughed and non-verbally belittled his opponent. I knew as I watched Biden’s performance that the Republican partisans would draw the Gore analogy. I worried, but was also enthused. Now that I have had a bit of time to deliberately consider the evening, I think that there was good reason for my enthusiasm.
Biden non-verbally framed the debate, deflecting Ryan’s criticisms, highlighting the thinness of the Romney-Ryan critique of the administrations foreign policy, and the contradictions of the Romney Ryan economic plans. Take a look at the embedded video. Notice that Biden’s expressive behavior was responsive to what Ryan was saying and that it is consistent with what we know about Biden, the man, how he presented himself last night and how he has presented himself in our experience.
Biden is an honest Joe, sitting at the bar, infuriated by the nonsense he is hearing, unable to control himself, wanting desperately to set the record straight. Herein lies Biden’s victory (I am thinking about the great sociologist Erving Goffman and his master essay “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor”). Far from being a weakness Biden’s expressions are at the root of his decisive victory.
Through his demeanor and his lack of deference, Biden managed to define the situation. He turned the evening in his favor. The debate started with Obama – Biden on the run. Romney had won the last debate and has been on a roll. His stock was up, Obama’s down. Romney seemed to be turning the election into a referendum over the Obama record, as he presented himself as a competent moderate Republican technocrat: no right-wing extremist he. Biden last night in his body language reversed the trend. Who are Romney and Ryan? And why are the saying what they have been saying about American foreign policy? With a puzzled frown, Biden underscored this question. And what are they saying about taxes, Medicare and Social Security? With a flash of a smile, Biden raised serious doubts about the veracity of what they have been saying.
Apart from this win, the debate was a success because each man presented his party’s position: on foreign policy, taxes and deficits, economic growth, social justice, and on the proper relationship between religious belief and public policy, including the issues of women’s rights and abortion.
As a partisan, I am very pleased that Biden made the positions of Obama and his party clear, with a full command of the facts. Ryan also presented his party’s positions effectively. As a theater critic, though, I am struck by the fact that Biden’s performance was more sincere, fluid and engaging. But I know that other theater critics, such as Peggy Noonan at that great theater review, the Wall Street Journal, with different politics, review the debate drama differently.
But theatrical performance, of course, is not really the issue. How the performance is defined by and helps define a script is. And this is why I think that not only did Biden win last night, but that Ryan and Romney lost. Their script is flawed, filled with contradictions about which they can’t, in the end, give persuasive account.
Their response to Obama’s foreign policy successes is to tell a story of weakness, of apology for America. They present a neo-conservative position, while not clearly identifying with the position as brought to us by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. They want to criticize Obama’s policies in North African and the Middle East, asserting the need for toughness. They criticize Obama for working through the United Nations, consulting with allies, dealing with Russia and China as they are, not as imagined Cold War enemies, but they have not presented alternative policies, which very well might not be popular. As Biden suggested: ground troops in Syria and a regional conflict, an international conflict in Iran with a global economic crisis, and continued American troops in Afghanistan.
On tax policy, Ryan claimed they had a plan but wouldn’t explain any details. Cut tax rates for the rich and middle class alike by twenty per cent, pay for it by closing loopholes and reducing deductions, with only the faintest hint of what would be closed and reduced. There’s a problem. Now Romney-Ryan want to claim that this will not affect the taxes of the middle class, but if it is born by the rich (oopps, I mean job creators), how would this lead to their supply side fantasies of an economic boom created by cutting taxes.
The Ryan plan of old was more about reducing the size of government and unleashing private entrepreneurship, unshackling individual creativity, advocating minimal government, his strong Randian inspired ideological streak, also the rallying cry of the Tea Party. Romney, the severe conservative, supported this during the Republican primaries and his choice of Ryan confirmed this support. Now the running mates are running away from this position, as is confirmed by both debates. Romney somehow pulled this off last week, a commanding performance. Ryan couldn’t.
Biden did his job. He has helped Obama by leveling the playing field for the next debate. Biden wins, and the campaign proceeds. I think with the advantage now turning in Obama’s favor.
As an Independent I was really put off by the condescending laughing while Ryan was talking. It reminded me of a Junior High debate tactic. Does it change my vote from Obama to Romney? No. Does it cast additional doubt in my mind into whether the Dems were anywhere near prepared enough to run for reelection? Uh, bigtime.
Andrew yours is certainly one kind of reaction to Biden’s expressions, highlighted by Republicans but others as well. I stand by my sense that Biden was acting in character and that while the laughing was not particularly respectful, it was supportive of his combative message, needed by the Democrats at this time. That said, clearly Obama cannot do the same on Tuesday. It would be out of character and undermine his position. Whether you liked or approved of Biden’s expressive behavior, I think it is quite clear that it helped define the situation of the debate and therefore was powerful, setting the stage for Tuesday’s debate.
Perhaps you are right. Maybe it is just a matter of of definition of situation. My reaction was very different. I have never seen anything like this in my professional experience. I felt that the Vice President’s behaviors and tactics disrespected many viewers (my wife a registered Democrat, for instance, refused to watch more than 20 minutes of the debate). I also felt in the process, he demonstrated a lack of civility and disrespected his opponent, the moderator, the process, viewers, and his office. I watched the whole debate, and understood where he was on solid ground, and where he wasn’t grounded. I had the feeling that the campaign professionals took the Vice President hostage. The result was something that might be very appealing to his core base, but would not sit well with many independents. I’ve had the feeling that the campaign created simulacrum of its opponents, and started to believe their simulacrum was reality. That’s a significant problem because real situations and people don’t respond like the imagined realities and others.
Michael, I think you hit the nail on the head. Many of my Democrat friends loved the debate and felt that Biden was the clear winner. Putting myself in the place of a Democratic supporter, I suppose I can understand. I can only make sense of it in my mind using a sports metaphor. It’s like the coach of my favorite team disrespecting a rival team’s coach – I probably wouldn’t see the problem with it. As Jeffery states, it may have been just what the base wanted to hear. As someone with political distance from both parties, however, I can say that, if that was in fact representative of Biden’s character and not just a poorly chosen response, that’s actually worse. The large number of use who don’t have a Republican or Democrat jersey in our closet (metaphor continued) don’t want to see bickering, arrogance, and condescension. My somewhat biased opinion is that you have to impress the Independents and the undecideds because your base will vote for you, regardless. Either way, I sincerely hope that the President can bring reassure me in the next debate that the party has it’s head on straight.
It seems preposterous that one might be more put off by Biden’s supposed “arrogance” than Ryan’s distortions. For example, as Ryan was criticizing the Obama administration for not bolstering embassy security in Libya, Biden had a huge grin on his face and soon pointed out that Ryan had actually voted to cut embassy spending. In the face of such BS, Biden’s response was understandable, if not civil compared to how one might be tempted to respond.
This post and the comments support what seems to be conventional wisdom: liberals were thrilled, conservatives and — to a lesser extent — independents were repulsed by Biden’s performance. One twist from an unabashed liberal trying to remain open-minded: I thought Biden did great, in particular had much better command of the facts than Obama did. The twist is I was listening on the radio so didn’t get the visual sense that he was being condescending or obnoxious. I wonder if this audio/visual split transcends party lines.
I am in agreement with Andrew and Michael. Now it must be said that when I watched the first Obama-Romney debate, I thought that it was close to a tie. I was surprised by the consensus. I liked the fact that both candidates were respectful and argued their points with seriousness if not (on either side with much precision). I thought that Obama was presidential and calm, and Romney was an intense leader. It is hard to know what either has in store for us over the next four years. We learned that perhaps Romney doesn’t have a five billion dollar tax cut, but we don’t know the cost that will be entailed. It is likely to be less than $5 billion (even Stephanie Cutter recognizes that) and a good deal more than couch change.
However, the Biden-Ryan debate was something different. Ryan, like all politicians, slanted his arguments to make the best case and certainly left ambiguities on the table. But Biden seemed to have real trouble with affect control. Perhaps he was coached to be this way, but I was worried about his stability and who prepared the brownies before the debate.. The posters of Obama as The Joker were crass, but Biden would fit. I came away with deep respect (not agreement) with Ryan as a potentially plausible president and with real concern with Joe Biden in the same role. And on substance Biden made a real hash of the first section of the debate on Libya: We weren’t told to step up security in Libya on 9/11. Isn’t there an office of Western Union in Bengazi. Uh, guys. The Libya debacle – the claims of non-existent rioting crowds – vitiates the Osama success.
Gary, I knew that Obama didn’t do well in the first debate, but I too have been surprised by the powerful negative response to his performance. Clearly it wasn’t the argument, but his demeanor and non verbal communications. Romney dominated in the persona of the pitch man that he is. Your, and Andrew’s and Michael’s, response to Biden on the other hand, I think reveals a certain aesthetic preference for cool civility which I personally share, but it doesn’t take into account how non verbal communication helps to define a situation. Of course, as Scott Dodelson points out, this confirms the support of Democrats for the Obama Biden view of the world, and the Republican and some independents (are they really?) opposition. As election campaign proceeds, I think Biden played his role, turning the campaign focus on the coherence and veracity of Romney Ryan. Thus “Scott” argument. I would add that Biden performed in character and therefore was that much stronger. Scott Dodleson’s judging the debate by listening not viewing is classic. Remember JFK defeated Nixon in the first televised Presidential debate in the opinion of viewers, lost for those who listened on the radio. Neither is more real. Michael Schudson has brilliantly highlighted this in THE GOOD CITIZEN. And Gary, I really can’t believe that you are equating the fog of war and the pr of the state department and White House response to Bengazi as equally in importance the killing of Osama bin Laden, especially when Republicans are implicated in the cutting of Embassy security.