Visceral trumps cerebral
The Philadelphia Inquirer Blog - American Debate
Visceral trumps cerebral
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Any Obama fan who believes that the presumptive Democratic nominee is well positioned to woo anti-abortion voters - indeed, any Obama fan who is giddily anticipating an easy November victory - would be well advised to check the transcript, or view the video, of the faith forum hosted on Saturday night by pastor/author Rick Warren.
As I outlined here last Thursday, Barack Obama is trying to give equal time in the party platform to anti-abortion voters, mostly by signaling that he supports expanded alternatives to the procedure, with the aim of reducing over time the total number of abortions. The potential problem, however, is that few voters pay attention to party platforms. What the candidates say on TV - and how they say it - is probably more persuasive. Which brings us to the nationally-broadcast forum at the evangelical Saddleback megachurch.
Warren brought up the abortion issue, and then asked Obama, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Obama then replied, "Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue..."
One hour later, with John McCain in the chair, Warren asked virtually the same question: "At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?"
McCain did not hesitate. He replied: "At the moment of conception."
Which response is likely to resonate with the vast majority of anti-abortion voters - the unequivocal declarative sentence....or the evasive rumination that (to many people) probably comes off as stereotypical Democratic intellectual dithering?
By the way, the abortion portion of the evening actually got worse for Obama after his "pay grade" evasion. He quickly tried this segue: "The goal right now should be - and this is where I think we can find common ground...is how do we reduce the number of abortions, because the fact is that although we've had a president who is opposed to abortions over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down." Warren heard him out, and then asked him the perfect follow-up question: "Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?"
Obama's response: "I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions if there is an exception for the mother's health. Now, from the perspective of those who, you know, are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate. And I respect their views. I mean, one of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue..."
And off he went on another extended ramble, which failed to mask the fact that he never answered the question, never cited any past votes to reduce abortions. And along the way, he also made a factual error. Warren didn't call him on it (luckily for Obama), but I will. Whereas Obama claimed that, during President Bush's tenure, "abortions have not gone down," the data shows otherwise. According to the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute, the most respected keeper of such stats, there were eight percent fewer abortions in 2005 (the latest year available) than in 2000. And during that initial phase of the Bush era (2001 through 2005), the total number of abortions declined each year.
All told, I doubt that anti-abortion voters were drawn to Obama's cerebral ruminations. It's certainly true that McCain is hardly the anti-abortion diehard that he purported to be on Saturday night - back in 1999, he stated that “in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade," and he has never supported a federal constitutional amendment banning all abortions - but he did not ruminate on any of that (nor did Warren ask him, either). All the viewers saw was how he answered on camera: short, direct, declarative. Hence, easy to remember.
The same stylistic gap - cerebral versus visceral - was evident at several other points in the forum, again to Obama's potential disadvantage. Such as the exchanges about the nature of evil.
Warren asked Obama: "Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?"
Obama's response: "Evil does exist. I mean, we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil in parents have viciously abused their children and I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world...Now, the one thing that I think is very important for us is to have humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, but, you know, a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil...And I think one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that, you know, just because we think our intentions are good doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good..."
One hour later, Warren asked McCain the same question about evil and what we should do about it. McCain's response began this way:
"Defeat it."
Then he segued right into his comfort zone, and stayed there: "My friends, we are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century, radical Islamic extremists...If that (suicide bombing) isn't evil, you have to tell me what is, and we're going to defeat this evil...and we face this threat throughout the world. It's not just in Iraq. It's not just in Afghanistan. Our intelligence people tell us that al Qaeda continues to try to establish cells here in the United States of America...We must face this challenge and we must totally defeat it..."
Most Obama supporters undoubtedly believe that McCain came off as simplistic, that he sounded like a talking point for the politics of fear. But from the perspective of a low-information swing voter, I'd bet that McCain came off a lot better than Obama.
The biggest gut factor in this campaign is whether these swing voters can envision Obama grappling effectively with a national security crisis in the middle of the night. A ruminative ramble about evil, about the need for "humility" when trying to confront the evil that may exist in Darfur or in American households or wherever, does not have nearly the same visceral punch as a terse, focused response about al Qaeda (indeed, Obama never even got around to mentioning al Qaeda).
I'm not suggesting that McCain's qualitiative arguments were better or worse (he riffed yet again about "victory" in Iraq, as ever ill-defined). I'm suggesting only that, with respect to the communicative arts in this media-saturated culture, nuanced thoughtfulness is arguably less effective than declarative directness; indeed, the former is particularly perilous for any Democrat, since, fairly or not, millions of low-information swing voters still view the Democrats as insufficiently resolute. These voters are likely to favor the declarative approach anyway, if only because it is easier to ascertain where the candidate stands.
And this is potentially a warning bell for Obama, as the autumn debate season draws near. McCain will be far tougher in those three sessions than many Obama fans assume. Obama might be well advised to lose the nuance and punch up his responses; after all, as a general rule, visceral trumps cerebral.
It wasn't a bad night for Obama. (The "above my pay grade" line was by far his worst moment.) It was a great night for McCain though.— bon- As someone who was watching this with a "low-information" voter I was not surprised when she asked about Obama's abortion response "What the heck is he talking about? Can't he just give a straight answer?" It's about time this column recognized what is going on here. Obama would make Muhammad Ali proud with all his bobbing and weaving. It would be nice if the democrats could offer a real alternative, someone actually worth voting for.— jwad56
- I saw the "human rights" question and answer, and I have to agree that Obama made a mess of it. He needs to understand that he is trying to sell something - himself - to a lot of simple-minded people, and stop talking like he's a professor at one of the finest law schools in the country addressing a room full of brilliant scholars.— yoda
- A president is a decisive decision maker, not a meandering philosopher. Obama's kool-aid drinkers, Polman included, should be hiding in shame after their Messiah's embarrassing display on Saturday. What you call 'cerebral' and 'nuanced,' I call evasive and free of substance. Does Obama believe in anything?— ILikeIke
Comment removed.- Yeah. Because the "visceral", act first, think later approach has been working so well for the last 8 years. Hooray for visceral! Bow down before the new "deciderer"!— JLB
- Well put JLB - In other words just because you are unhappy with the last 8 years settle for the Obama mumbo jumbo who cares if it lacks any spine or substance.— jwad56
- Visceral works because in today's high tech world decisions need to be made more quickly and decisively. A lot of times a leader does not have the time for nuance and elaborate speeches....just make a decision. Obama showed he may have trouble making those types of decisions. Also, long elaborate answers like he gave lend credance to the notion of his being an elitist...and no, that has nothing to do with wealth. I suppose it would have been difficult for him to say there that he voted three times to deny medical aid to a baby born alive from a botched abortion....thereby leaving them to die. That probably would not have gone over too well in a church.— tom - wilmington, de
- "Obama fan" I guess you agree that he's nothing but a celebrity.— doorspj24
- Comment removed.
- Obama's "Gore 2000 disease" is no longer in remission. You can't be "all things to all people" & win. Citizens, even low information ones, are just too suspicious of candidates who don't take a stand. Unfortunately, in these types of forums, too much information can overwhelm your point. Politically, its OK to either be for or against abortion (there are voters on both sides). Even though the debate forum is one more in tune with Republican viewpoints, he would have come out better if he was more direct.— yobill626
Why is it that if you prefer a Presidential candidate to give clear, concise and unambiguous answers to questions about their core beliefs, you are categorized, in the most condescending way possible, as a "low information" voter? Barack Obama can't give a direct answer to a direct question so, according to Dick, it's the voters who have the problem. My nuanced analysis of Dick's column is this: he's worried. Obama is underperforming in what should be a cakewalk election for Democrats, and he sounds like a babbling fool under direct questioning. You see, I figured that out all by myself.— jmc- How many more times is Obama going to say, "you know"? He sounds like he is fumbling for words; like a deer in the headlights.— thelastRepublicaninPhilly
- Comment removed.
- Yeah thelastRepublicaninPhilly and why can't he hold his head up straight? I was beginning to think there was something wrong with my tv.— jwad56
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
