Friday, October 5, 2012

- The Next Debate : Part 2

I have a theory about arguing that I think explains a lot of what happened at the Denver debates. Tell me what you think of this train of thought:

Conservatives have a natural advantage when it comes to the battle of ideas. Conservative thinking springs from broad general principles based on the relatively unchanging portions of human nature. So when it comes time to defend conservative ideas off the cuff, it's relatively easy to reach into the font of human wisdom, extrapolate it across proven intellectual pathways, and deliver it in some sort of coherent way. All you need is someone smart enough an literate enough to know the intellectual road map.

Liberal thinking on the other hand functions differently. Every issue for a liberal has to be cordoned off from some logical principles while it embraces others. The rules that define which portions of logic apply to which issue and which do not, are all being reinvented as the conversation progresses. So the only way to avoid a serious intellectual contradiction is to memorize the entire newly invented rule set pertaining to which portions of logic apply to which specific issue and which don't.

Another way of saying this is that conservative thinking is largely based on reality while liberal thinking is based on a vision of a world which doesn't actually exist. Since that's so, the liberal has a much harder row to hoe because they have to build an intellectually credible excuse for everywhere that they deviate from the facts. This is by no means an easy feat.

I was trying to think of any time where I saw a civil discussion where the liberal won the debate. I couldn't. In the end the only way they "win" is by blowing up and attacking the conservative personally ("you're a racist, you're a Nazi, you're anti _____") or if the discussion is constrained by time and they keep the subject changing so rapidly that only a sound bite of knowledge is ever compared (ala Chris Mathews, Bill Maher.)

Neither of these tactics will win a presidential debate, but to the degree that the discussion is framed to be restricted in a way that favors liberals, the President should do better. In that respect I think both the original format of the discussion and the fact that Jim Lehrer gave the candidates a lot of latitude to get into detail, both hurt Obama badly. But if he tries to 'fight back' the way the MSNBC staff thinks he should, the more actual information is presented the more likely he is to blow up.

Romney clearly has the intellectual guns to deliver the data if a real 'battle of ideas' is what the next debate is about. Obama will need the moderator to keep it down to a sound bite level to even keep up with him, and at this point the moderator will risk much by limiting the candidates in that way. the crowd who will yelp and hoot hoot hoot, to Obamas pop culture coolness, won't help things.

Candy Crowley from CNN will moderate the next debate, and I personally think she'll be less sensitive to criticisms of bias. So between the town hall format and a moderator who will be less apologetic about favoring the president, I think Romney will have his work cut out for him.

Romney can still win it. I personally think the President is little more than an empty suit who made his way in the world thanks to affirmative action. But both the media and the President will be more prepared to make Romney look bad. So it's unlikely that we see another trouncing like the last debate was.

14 comments:

Chess said...

True...My problem is that the repubs have trouble disarming that blowup from liberals. when they get yelled at bout racism and nazi etc shit they freeze up. Hiliary froze and she was one of em.
I thing sometoimes that conservatives stay with their beliefs and figure thats all they need,. This number this am will not help. The repubs should have stuck to the number of people in the unemployed when he took office. This 7.8 will be on so often we will hear it in our sleep.
My final hammer that should have been removed was that tax cut bs. Mitt has let BHO take that and run.
Tax cuts increase revs to the treasury.. It did with Kennedy and everytime since.Take that hammer out of their hands dammit.It is the 535 drunkin sailors that spend more.Shit

Tom said...

I think Romney has correctly concluded, that Snookie doesn't understand that a tax cut increases treasury revenue. He's saying what achieve the goal instead of saying what will make everyone feel good.

ikaika said...

I don't like Town Hall debates. They quickly drift from reality and wind-up in the outer nebulus of pop culture conjecture.

I get your argument, but Romney is not a conservative.
What I believe it comes down to is truth telling and knowledge of the facts.

A platform built on a foundation of lies and half truths will ultimately collapse. The person delivering the message is forced to swallow outrageous fabrication and retell them without wincing.
Or in the case of Hussein - Smirking when confronted with an uncontestable truth. The smirk means a few things - the biggest "tell" is the facial expression saying "Ok, you got me..." or "you're right, I know it, but I despise you for telling the truth".

While I believe Romney is far from conservative, he is the worst possible opponant for Obama to face.

Obama was supposed to clean his clock on Public Healthcare. How do you defeat the guy that the administratin "hailed" as the architect of Obamacare? This is the sullen stupidity of people like axelrod and shulz.

Paint the guy as a right wing kook and then salute him for a liberal achievement?

I'm sorry, but that would be like some guy producing a cheap knock-off 1911 trying to tell J Moses Browning he knows nothing about his own patents, and then saying "I designed my Auto-pistol after his - therefore its the best!"

Obama can prepare all he wants. The media is still in his corner pressing the illusion that Romney was all style and no substance.

Obama will try to score style points galore in the next debate and I believe Romney will bury him in substance.


ikaika said...

LMAO - according to CNBC's Bob Pisani and Carl Q, Jack Welch is a Conspiracy Theorist

Tom said...

First of all, (and respectfully) the issue of whether Romney is a 'real' conservative or not isn't at issue here. He's arguing basically conservative principles and he's absolutely arguing them in a conservative way. He's starting with reality, and extrapolating that into everything else.

Secondly, I agree with you about the town hall format, and I think that will hurt Romney considerably. I don't think most people care about facts. Popular culture has trained them not to.

But I'm quite certain that the Republicans will be allowed to fill half the seats, and those seats will respond vigorously to what he says as opposed to Obama's supporters who will be lackluster.

If they didn't get the Democrats to agree to allowing them to fill half the seats, then they are imbeciles and deserve to lose not only the debate, but probably the election as well. Forcing Romney to debate Obama in front of a code pink meeting (or some other cherry picked Democrat constituency) is about the only thing that could guarantee an Obama victory. No one could be that stupid.








chess said...

I understand that but a lot of the 6% in the middle would with a Sowell talking..When I go into Ikaika's message about half truths thats exactly what this is..Half at best.So many branches of the tax cut tree then branch off into other half truths for the liberals.It caused the deficits? etc..

You are going to hear 7.8 more often than A $5 SUBWAY COMMERCIAL.

ikaika said...

7.8 is not as impressive as the 5.6 before Obama took over

Tom said...

Or the 8.3 it will be when it's revised after the election.

ikaika said...

can we get a mute trombone or a price is right fail-horn when the revision gets posted?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

.. did they post the total employment number? A lot of the drops in the UE number has been people just dropping completely out of the workforce.

The primary people I rent to are the 20 somethings who are starting their first jobs out of college. In the spring when I advertised a vacancy, I found fairly strong demand.

Demand has dropped off a cliff again. I have been landlording since 1997. Drops in demand for me have always correlated tightly with drop in hiring.

ikaika said...

“This is not what a real recovery looks like. We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we’ve lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office. If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11 percent. The results of President Obama’s failed policies are staggering – 23 million Americans struggling for work, nearly one in six living in poverty and 47 million people dependent on food stamps to feed themselves and their families. The choice in this election is clear. Under President Obama, we’ll get another four years like the last four years. If I’m elected, we will have a real recovery with pro-growth policies that will create 12 million new jobs and rising incomes for everyone.”

chess said...

Blah blah blah....7.8 footlong....
Get on board the BHO economic patriotic hypnotic psychotic train FORWARD.

chess said...

All right . I have listened to a dozen talking heads and I am still trying to see what the fu... is so great about 114k?????????? Goldies main guy just says this is ??encouraging???? 114 k..Are we this shitty that we look up to 114k and say wow?
Ikaika I take it that the last post of yours was Mitts response? It was good but hes fighting every tv in the nation with this.In am the pos post disgrace in St.Louis will lead with that number.Im hoping Biden brings it up and Ryan slaps it down...114k

chess said...

Pudzer econ guy for R&R with a good rebuttal...I feel better....A lot better..Take a deep breath Chess and go back to your happy spot