“The most damaging things in politics are the things that confirm people’s pre-existing suspicions, and those are the things that travel very fast. It’s a problem.”David Axelrod, political strategist and senior advisor to Barack Obama
I was not a good high school debater. I lacked "fluency" in unscripted situations. I groped for words. I was a giant frustration to myself, and surely to my friend and debate partner, Jon Stong.
 |
| I'm the boy with glasses on the left. Jon is the tall boy in the middle. |
I was sort of like Joe Biden is now, only worse. I agonize when I watch Biden try to express himself in unscripted situations. I feel his pain.
I developed two workarounds back when I was in high school. I liked being the "first affirmative" speaker when possible, which meant I had a prepared speech to start out, rather than solely spontaneous ones. If I could practice what I was going to say a few times and get the kinks out of the words, I was fine. I watch Biden use a version of that device -- his teleprompter speeches.
The second workaround was a persuasion technique. I discovered something. I considered it a crutch and a debate "equalizer" -- my secret weapon. When being assigned the "negative" or opposition side of a debate or in the "affirmative rebuttal" slot, which are the positions in which the debater spoke spontaneously, I mostly stopped trying to present new evidence. I didn't try to change the mind of a debate judge. Instead my approach was to frame my argument (haltingly presented, alas) by reminding the judge only of things the judge already knew and believed. That's it. As I said to my debate partner, "I can't change anybody's mind when I talk. All I can do is try to remind people that they already agree with our side."
David Axelrod's quotation at the top of the page makes that point. He was talking about Biden and the comment by special prosecutor, but it applies generally. The idea relates to issues this blog brings up repeatedly because it is central to politics. First impressions matter. Voters make snap decisions with their intuitions -- their guts. Voters profile politicians based on appearances. Voters fit politicians into already-existing templates of identity. Voter support is dominated by appearance, presentation, and body language.
The standard high school debate method of persuasion would be quickly to rattle off a checklist of facts and positions which might persuade a voter to support someone. People may think they make voting decisions that way, but they are fooling themselves. My debate workaround way -- the Axelrod way -- would be more like showing this image of the Montana Democratic senator Jon Tester.
He is, at first glance and for real, a Montana farmer. He does not look like a city boy dressed in a farmer costume. There is no set of facts that can better make Jon Tester a credible farmer-senator than how he looks at first glance. If any Democrat can win in Montana, it will be a stout guy with a crewcut and an ill-fitting suit.
Special prosecutor Robert Hur wrote that Biden had "limited precision and recall."
At trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.
It was an outrageous thing to put into his report, but the deed is done. I expect it to have political traction. The idea is already out there in the political zeitgeist that Biden is elderly. There is no arguing that he is young and articulate. There is no changing minds. There is only the frame and from which direction to see it. Is he old but OK? Or is he old but not-OK?
The Republican special prosecutor put his weight behind what people already knew, and then took the side that Biden is not OK.
10 comments:
Is it too late for Biden to bow out? Michelle Obama apparently would win? Yes, I like Biden and yes he is too old to run again much less run the presidency. As an aside Trump is to old as well and would be an American disaster of a president. Jill Biden, if you are reading this blog, please convince your husband to step down. Please.
This is hypothetical, of course, but if you were to commit a serious crime such as murder, then the prosecutor would look at your mental state of being in order to determine if you were "fit" to be prosecuted. Being "fit" means that you are of "right" and "sound" mind, and you are cognitively aware of your environment. People who are "senile" are given a "pass" when they commit murder, and they are instead sent to a mental hospital or mental facility.
Prosecutor Robert Hur deemed Joe Biden to be too mentally incompetent to stand trial for possessing illegally-held classified documents. Joe Biden committed a crime that Donald Trump is currently being prosecuted for. However, Robert Hur has deemed Joe Biden to be "unfit" for a criminal trial, since Joe Biden is not of "right" mind.
That begs the huge question: "If Joe Biden is not of "right" or "sound" mind in order to prosecuted for a criminal act, then what makes Joe Biden mentally fit to be President?"
It's time for Biden to resign as President.
Curt Ankerberg
Medford, OR
The special prosecutor found willful mishandling of classified records by Biden, including disclosures of still-classified foreign policy materials to his memoir’s ghostwriter….and yet the “partisan” declined to recommend charges. A special prosecutor is required to write a report, so cannot leave matters with simply declining to charge. Hence, the specific explanation of why charges against Biden are not appropriate, namely Biden’s patent mental infirmity, when Biden’s memory and willfulness would be elements a prosecutor must prove.
Biden’s manifest incapacities are suddenly like the border crisis for Democrats, especially in the legacy media: it’s gone from a few years now of head-in-sand “Nothing To See Here!”, to “GOP Bad Faith, Double Standards And Irresponsiblilty!”, and the long-familiar “Republicans Pounce!” deflection practically overnight. Out of the spin zone, however, it’s pretty telling for Biden to turn down a softball Super Bowl live interview with CBS. His handlers may worry that he’d describe recently discussing Sunday’s matchup with Bart Starr.
I agree with Curt (really?) Biden should step aside. Let the primaries go on as planned. Then, at the convention in August, let him step down and throw it open to the delegates. I really like Jon Tester. Midwest guy, farmer, well spoken. A great alternative.
Anybody who imagines that Trump is less demented than Biden obviously isn't paying attention. As for the merits of the case against Trump, there’s a world of difference between trying to conceal stolen nuclear secrets and Biden’s complete cooperation.
Biden is like a benign tumor that we can live with. Trump is a cancer that’s been removed once but has metastasized and threatens us yet again.
Curt, again is mistaken. Special Counsel Hur did NOT make a Fact Finding that the President is not mentally fit to retain his Office, but offered some venomous opinions of his own, which had no place in this bogus report. Nowhere in his C.V. Does Hur have any qualifications as a Neuroligist, Neuroscientist,psychiatric or psychology credentials. In fact, there is nothing in the Appointment letter which tells him to offer any of the twaddle he filled his report with beyond "Did the President commit any crimes according to the law?",such as refusing to turn over any classified documents found in his possession to the National Archives .
FALSE.
As one who has written about such matters, the prosecutor only needs to explain whether the available evidence is likely to resullt in a conviction.
The prosecutor should not second guess jurors.
Subject to informed correction, of course, I believe Hur did indeed lay out the substantial evidence that violations of the law occurred here. He then explained that a jury would likely not convict anyway, because of sympathy for an elderly, increasingly forgetful man in whom specific intent to violate that law must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. That detailed assessment is a special counsel’s mandate. Hur is like Robert Mueller in this connection, but unlike James Comey (in place of Loretta Lynch), who simply could have said, “No reasonable prosecutor would charge Clinton here. End of statement”.
Voters make intuitive decisions about who best represents their values based on the way candidates present themselves. Trump presents himself as an angry bully who cares only about himself and has nothing but contempt for truth, justice and democratic principles. There are no tricks of the debaters’ trade capable of persuading those who find that appealing. All we can do is encourage people with higher values to vote and hope there's more of them.
I guess one person's opinion of an attempted virtual political assassination is another person's reasonable excuse for supporting said virtual political hit job.
Post a Comment