I've also posted this at Catch, and since 99.9% of my visitors are referred here by that site (the other 0.1% arrive via Google searches for "ass invader") , I apologize to anyone who's seeing it for the second time. Cross-posting it here is largely for the benefit of my friends and family, most of whom are familiar with this blog, but, when told I've written something for "Catch," typically respond something along the lines of "What? You wrote something for Cats.com? Is it about how Garfield has been losing his edge recently?"
Anyhow, here's the piece:
In spite of emphasizing rhetoric that appealed more to their base than to undecided voters, the Republicans will, in the aftermath of their convention, almost certainly receive a bounce in the polls. Due to the highly polarized nature of the electorate, this bounce will be small, at best - as was the case for the Democrats, following their convention; however, it should be significant enough to move George W. Bush into the lead in the polls.
In light of this possibility, a number of my friends have responded, "Just wait until the debates. That's when Kerry will put that dumbass Bush away." Unfortunately, though, as much as I'd like to agree that this is the case, I cannot; for Bush has proved himself, first in his 1994 gubernatorial contest against Ann Richards, and again in his 2000 campaign against Al Gore, exceptionally skilled at the art of debate.
Now, don't get me wrong, here. I'm not trying to suggest Bush is some sort of poor man's Socrates. In fact, if the Presidential debates were scored on the basis of the participants' command of rhetoric, and factual knowledge, a la a high school- or college-level debate competition, Bush would be lucky to rate much better than, well, "poor," as it were. But no such critical judgment comes to bear on the national stage - a fact of which Bush is keenly aware.
No, in the presidential debates, the only judges are the public - most of whom, in all likelihood, lack the knowledge that would allow them to readily judge whether a statement is true, and lack the objectivity that would allow them to judge whether an argument is logically sound. Hence, the goal of a shrewd candidate is - by any means necessary - to make themselves look good at the expense of their opponent.
Bush, as speaks to his success, understands this fact exceptionally well, and employs it to devastating effect. In particular, what he seems to grasp is that , while Americans will tolerate a dimwit, they absolutely fucking hate an egghead. Hence, in his debates with both Ann Richards and Al Gore, he's played a sort of intellectual rope-a-dope, cowering against the ropes, while allowing his opponents to punch themselves silly. However, after absorbing his beating, Bush delivers no knockout blow to his exasperated adversary. Rather, merely by playing the punching bag, he solidifies his status as an everyman, while his opponent is painted by the press as "humorless," "pedantic," "tiresome," or worst of all, "a scold."
Fortunately, John Kerry seems to grasp Bush's talent as a a debater - acknowledging, in his recent appearance on the Daily Show, that the incumbent "won" his debates against Ann Richards and Al Gore. Which - hopefully - means that when it comes debate time, the Great Democratic Hope will do what all learned fighters do when faced with the rope-a-dope, which is to remain in the center of the ring, and force their opponent to come after them. A strategy that, translated from boxing into rhetoric, would equate to stepping back when Bush starts in on his "aw-shucks" routine, and making a statement, or a proposal, that the President would have no choice but which to respond. Keeping Bush on the offensive is, somewhat paradoxically, the only chance Kerry has for victory.
But, then again, what do I know. All I know about boxing I learned from Punch-Out.
