Verdicts on the first presidential debate of 2012 overwhelmingly favour Governor Mitt Romney.
Romney articulated his message with a sense of clarity about the political ideas and principles he represents. In contrast President Barack Obama conveyed his arguments with the deftness of a policy wonk, the clarity of his own vision overshadowed by dense policy explanations.
The debate was always Obama’s to lose, with a senior Romney advisor noting that voters expected Obama to prevail in the debates by a margin of 25 points. The Atlantic national correspondent James Fallows points out that Romney was destined to exceed expectations, both through his proven debating skills, and by mere virtue of being seen on an equal footing with the President.
As such the key question is not who “won” on the night, but rather what the debate reveals about the ability of each candidate to bring his own strengths to bear on his opponent’s weaknesses. The debate exposed a growing strategic divide between the candidates over the perceived importance of emphasising a clear ideological vision versus a concrete policy program. The reason for Romney’s crisp delivery may ultimately be his greatest weakness; while the source of Obama’s sometimes turgid responses may yet propel him to victory in the November election.
Romney’s performance showed his preference for clear ideological vision over policy detail. The entirety of Romney’s responses revolved around repeating a set of traditional conservative platitudes: cutting the size of federal government, reducing bureaucratic waste, devolving power to states, and deregulating the economy. The strategy of answering questions according to these first principles contributed to the clarity of Romney’s message that so impressed many viewers.
However, Romney’s failure to develop a policy program giving life to his ideological vision was conspicuous as the debate progressed. This has been a growing theme of the Democratic campaign, and Obama seized on it as Romney’s Achilles’ heel. Obama challenged Romney’s inability to demonstrate the feasibility of cutting taxes by $5 trillion, increasing military spending by $2 trillion, and yet remaining revenue neutral by closing tax loopholes and deductions.
Romney’s response included the listing of unflattering economic statistics of the past four years and studies challenging Obama’s position. Yet nowhere could Romney provide the requisite list and costing of loopholes and deductions necessary to substantiate this most pivotal policy.

On healthcare Romney reiterated his intention to repeal “Obamacare” by referring to the article of faith that “free people and free enterprises trying to find ways to do things better are able to be more effective in bringing down the cost than the government will ever be.” Again Obama responded by attacking Romney for failing to specify what would replace Obamacare once it was repealed, while questioning the absence of details necessary to demonstrate that the alternative plan would nevertheless continue to cover people with pre-existing conditions.
Not surprisingly Romney excelled in responding to a big picture question on the appropriate role of federal government. The high-water mark of Romney’s elevation of ideological principles over policy details came when he pointed to the image of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence projected behind the candidates as the basis for his answer. Yet the election will not be decided by those who are satiated by such ideological tropes. Policy details are the red meat that will lure crucial undecided voters.
With five weeks of the campaign left Obama is well placed to continue speaking to voters in terms of a contest between competing policy programs. This will disarm efforts by the Romney campaign to cast the election as an ideological choice between “two very different paths”. As things stand Obama would wield the decisive advantage among those undecided voters who are looking for more than naked ideology of either stripe.
Clear political principles are a necessary element for an effective campaign. The internally coherent world view of George W. Bush became a key asset in his electoral victories. Yet first principles are only politically meaningful insofar as they provide the blueprint for a specific policy program. The political irrelevancy of Sarah Palin attests to the limitations of politics constructed entirely on folk wisdom that fail to progress to a workable policy program.
Romney’s efforts in a contest of political ideology will ultimately be in vain unless he can provide details of an alternative policy program converting grand principles into solutions for the country’s economic woes. Tenaciously clinging to a perceived ideological advantage could come at the expense of fulfilling this task. The great irony is that if the battle over policy is neglected the ideological war for the principles Romney touted so confidently in this first debate will also increasingly ring hollow.
Colin Kline
logged in via Facebook
-
I suggest that "The Conversation" explore Mitt JORGENSEN's political affiliations and funding, for nowhere in this article did he mention the swag of egregious lies that 'Mittens' recited during the first debate.
See this article for pointers to those lies:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/
-
John Phillip
John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
Grumpy Old Man
That left wing 'think tank' can hardly be descibed as either fair or inbiased, Colin. Please dont misrepresent it as being factual.
Peter Redshaw
Retired
All the commentators are saying that Romney won, but I think that says more about those commentators and those in voter land. It seems the prerequisite of a President or politician these days is to be a good actor, or second hand car salesmen (salesperson) and of course a good liar.
And even though people often complain that there is not enough policy, or substance, when they do take the time to do that, they say they are boring or lacklustre in their performance. So is the problem with them, or with the voter? After all in the end as voters whether in the US, or here in Australia, we get what we ask for, even if it is by not voting as so many in US don’t do. If they don’t vote, let alone demand better, how can any of them complain about what they end up getting?
Robert Tony Brklje
Robert Tony Brklje is a Friend of The Conversation.
retired
It's called rope a dope for a reason. Obama is a very smart practised debater, two round debates the first debate is meaningless only the second one counts.
First round, go lame, suck in all the oppositions arguments, give them very little to react to and a draw or less is preferred.
Then hammer home in the second round, when the opponent has no opportunity to recover.
People don't really appreciate it all that much but public debates, political discussion are very much like boxing.
All the similar moves apply, blocking, rolling with the punches, feinting, jabs, a good stiff uppercut to really land that last knock out blow home.
Rope a dope really does work and Romney is clumsy, he is far too used to relying upon uncontested lies targeted at the inexperienced.
Arthur James Egleton Robey
Industrial Electrician
Everything is for-ordained by the the puppet masters.
If you lay out billions of freshly minted notes, you expect compliance.
Stop pretending that we have a democracy.
Daryl Deal
retired
And so say, all the well paid talking heads to the well funded "Republican Party Megaphone Machine". They use the Joseph Goebbels mantra, repeat a lie often and loudly, and those who can't and/or are afraid to think for themselves, will think it be the truth. The cynical, are rarely fooled by such lies! The ersatz skeptics, are often fooled by all manner of lies.
Reality check : A handy reference chart 'Thou shall not commit a logical fallacy'; "Your Logical Fallacy Chart" :- http://yourlogicalfallacyis…
Read moreJack Arnold
Director
In the part of the telecast that I watched Mutt Rongly showed that he was a superficial person with a big ego and no policies. There is little doubt that Obama is the better candidate in a world where the Republican Party sponsors controlling US manufacturing have exported jobs to the Asian continent to maximise profits rather than pay American workers.
Now to bring home out troops from Afghanistan & remove the US Occupation Force based in Darwin to protect the Texaco oil & gas fields.