My take on the debate

Media coverage of US politics in Japan is surprisingly extensive. In the past months, both the Democratic and Republican conventions were broadcast live on BS1, NHK’s free satellite channel, in addition to the usual CNN, ABC and PBS news programs. When I lived in Canada, I usually ignored the US news stations in preference to news with a Canadian perspective which demoted American politics to 3 or 4 minute stories rather than hour long programs. However, given Japan and America’s unique relationship, it is understandable that a significant percentage of air time is consumed with issues concerning American politics and economics.

I was unable to watch the debate in its entirety but did see the highlights. As I suspected, John Kerry conducted himself as a refined debater using relatively sophisticated techniques to broadcast his ideas to the public. Bush appeared to be an accomplished high school debater and nothing more. When Kerry mentioned the need for the US to apply a “Global Test” before acting preemptively, the best rebuttal Bush could enunciate was a shrug of the shoulders and a dimwitted “What’s a Global Test?” accompanied by his trademark smirk.

As an aside, that smirk has irked me for years. To me, it is what you would find on a smug kid who would rely on his dad to bail him out when the water became too hot. It usually appears when something Bush considers witty and sharp tongued emerges from his mouth. In my opinion, it shows contempt for the general public and demonstrates his inability to intellectually engage the issues.

I will concede that the incumbent president or a former vice-president is always placed on the defensive in a debate which is often the more difficult position. Thus, Kerry, armed with ample fodder with which to attack Bush, seemed to be on the offensive most of the night. When Bush did attack Kerry’s frequent wavering on issues such as his support for the Iraq war, instead of simply defending himself, Kerry used it to effectively attack Bush’s ability to judge when American lives should be sacrificed. This effective technique allowed the viewers to directly compare who had made the greater mistake.

I enjoy intellectual arguments that take more than one or two sentences to enunciate. Too frequently, complex issues are reduced to easily digestible sound bites or are ignored completely as they are deemed not fit for public consumption. While Bush continued with his rhetoric about being a strong leader and Commander-in-Chief who supports his troops, I particularly enjoyed Kerry’s comments about the Cuban Missile Crisis when an official visited Charles De Gaulle and offered to show him the spy photographs justifying the American position. De Gaulle responded that he did not need to see the photos as he believed the word of the American president. Kerry then contrasted this with the lies and half-truths that the American government used to justify their war to the United Nations and how the current American president will never be able to regain the trust of the international community again. I thought it was an extremely effective method of conveying the distrust of the current administration that pervades the international community. However, it would not surprise me if references to De Gaulle are too obscure for the general electorate and continue the perception of Kerry being elitist. I am sure that the cry for Freedom Fries are still echoing through some cafeterias and people will wonder how Kerry could have the gall to bring up De Gaulle.

It does appear that Kerry “won” the debate in the general public according to polls taken immediately following. This must be particularly troubling for the Bush campaign given that national security which is intimately tied with the “War on Iraq/Terror” is Bush’s strength. It will be interesting to watch the remaining debates and what changes will be made. In my opinion, Bush needs to display more intellectual prowess and a firm grasp of the issues. Too often he is unable to come up with concrete examples and fumbles with important names. He is the master of repeating the same thing over and over again, much like his father’s “Thousand points of light”, “Stay the course”. However, one must wonder how effective this strategy will remain given Mr. Kerry’s demonstrated debating skills on Thursday evening.