Tonight I had the pleasure of having dinner with Norman Ornstein, an esteemed fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think-tank in Washington). His conversation at dinner was interesting, and he provided some good insight on my questions for him, but I'd like to talk a little bit about what he had to say about the first presidential debate, and what he had to say after watching the VP debate tonight (after his lecture with another Political Scientist named Thomas Mann, he watched the debate with us).
He explained that the pundits got it all wrong in their analysis of the first debate. The media's narrative was about who won the most 'debate points.' Many argued that John McCain was a stronger debater, particularly on foreign policy, but that Obama held his own. Ornstein explained that the debate wasn't about John McCain at all in fact. It was all about Obama proving to voters that he could be presidential, and he succeeded. No one doubted John McCain's knowledge on the issues, or even his experience. But Obama had to provide the image that he could be the man to lead the country.
In that respect, Obama won the debate.
Tonight, however, the tables were turned as all eyes turned to Sarah Palin--the great big question mark of this campaign. What Palin had to prove tonight had nothing to do with her in actuality. It had to do with John McCain and his judgment. Did McCain take a reckless risk in choosing the governor? In this respect, John McCain won because Palin held her ground, and even when she was clearly dodging the question, did it with a certain grace. The point is that Palin didn't screw up. She didn't give us that moment we had all been waiting for. Tonight Palin strongly defended John McCain's judgement (by performing well), and certainly provided much relief for the campaign.
However, both Mann and Ornstein projected a handy Obama victory unless something catastrophic happened. There are only 32 days left until the election, but something could easily happen in that amount of time.
With all that said, I'll just point out that the real winners of these debates are the military-industrialists and militarism, nuclear power, corporate crime and the bailout. The losers?
see more at my website: www.theskyewire.com
I read your other blog titled "Intellectual Elitism is Bad? "
You are so correct in your analysis. Intellectualism (or even intellectual curiousity) is painted as a "liberal" trait and intellectuals are considered not trustworthy by many conservatives, especially the Religious Right. It seems that the art of deep thinking is going quietly into the night.
And yes, there are intellectual conservatives; many of them prove fascinating to debate with. They are the ones most likely to analyze and admit the weaknesses in their ideology, instead of just insisting they are always right and everyone who doesn't agree with them is always wrong.
Intellectuals (and intellectually curious people) are true believers, people who test their ideas over and over, so they can finally come to a place they can defend with integrity.
What is sad to me is the person that doesn't have the openness to question their own ideas; those who cling to dogmatic ideas simply because it makes them feel cozy. There are people in this world who will happily and knowingly believe a lie just to be able to sleep at night; and then there are those who cannot sleep at night until they know the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it is. As for me, pain is gain.
In an authoritarian/totalitarian environment, the first people the regime usually targets are intellectuals. These reasonable and questioning individuals are the very first group dictators usually have killed in order to protect their ideology and spread their clever propaganda to the hardworking, unassuming, and very trusting "Average Joe".
This may not be happening here in America, but isn't ridiculing and minimizing the value of the intellectual mind in this great society merely a passive way of "murdering" them?