Bush - Kerry II
Thanks to the wonder of the BBC A/V player and my trusty broadband connection, I was able to review the second presidential debate over in the US. When I read the commentaries in sources such as the NY Times, ABC News and of course the BBC, it seemed that a lot of attention was being paid to the stylistic elements of each respective performance, rather than on the meat of the issues. I was far more interested in how answers met the questions themselves.
Of all the questions asked (and at last there were some that were outside the issue of Iraq), I think the question on abortion stood out. It is no secret that polarisation on this issue maps to the wider left-right ideological divide, and clearly it's not the kind of issue for which people change their minds in a single moment. Hence, responding to the question wasn't about persuading people on the basis of an argument, but rather a performance in how well the candidate could sell his sense of conviction. When the question was put, you could detect the difference between the two candidates. Kerry appeared to be criticised in the post-debate commentary for offering an over-elaborate response to the question, whereas Bush delivered a very direct and unambiguous (naturally conservative) line. Whilst some jumped on this as an example of Kerry's tendency to equivocate, I think he offered a sound, balanced response to a complex question.
It is difficult not to wince at the closed attitude of President Bush - he markets himself on an image of leadership that is decisive and firm, but in doing this he moves to disenfranchise any idea that does not fit his narrow tolerance. Kerry, on the other hand, makes a point of expressing respect for other opinions and his responses appeal to a sense of rational discussion.
It remains disturbing that Bush can retain such popularity, even though he appeals not so much to simplicity but simpleton values. It concerns me that some commentators suggest his appeal lies in the folksy connectedness of his humour, whilst Kerry is considered aloof. Shouldn't a president with the kind of powers that the US consitution affords indeed be elevated in intellect?
The final debate should be a humdinger...
Of all the questions asked (and at last there were some that were outside the issue of Iraq), I think the question on abortion stood out. It is no secret that polarisation on this issue maps to the wider left-right ideological divide, and clearly it's not the kind of issue for which people change their minds in a single moment. Hence, responding to the question wasn't about persuading people on the basis of an argument, but rather a performance in how well the candidate could sell his sense of conviction. When the question was put, you could detect the difference between the two candidates. Kerry appeared to be criticised in the post-debate commentary for offering an over-elaborate response to the question, whereas Bush delivered a very direct and unambiguous (naturally conservative) line. Whilst some jumped on this as an example of Kerry's tendency to equivocate, I think he offered a sound, balanced response to a complex question.
It is difficult not to wince at the closed attitude of President Bush - he markets himself on an image of leadership that is decisive and firm, but in doing this he moves to disenfranchise any idea that does not fit his narrow tolerance. Kerry, on the other hand, makes a point of expressing respect for other opinions and his responses appeal to a sense of rational discussion.
It remains disturbing that Bush can retain such popularity, even though he appeals not so much to simplicity but simpleton values. It concerns me that some commentators suggest his appeal lies in the folksy connectedness of his humour, whilst Kerry is considered aloof. Shouldn't a president with the kind of powers that the US consitution affords indeed be elevated in intellect?
The final debate should be a humdinger...
posted by nickwong8 at 11:01 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home