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.
Who exactly are "low information" voters? Are they the bitter, gun clinging, bible thumbing folks? Or do you consider them low information because they don't support your candidate?— thelastRepublicaninPhilly- When you're President of the United States of America - NOTHING is 'above your pay-grade'...— mskimberley
- b.atkinson - I don't think that is elitist. Calling people uninformed doesn't mean anything other than that they are uninformed. Thankfully the people that are informing themselves are rejecting Obama in greater and greater numbers.— jwad56
Comment removed.- jmc: It is the "What's the Matter with Kansas" frame of mind. Liberals of all stripes decided years ago that anyone who disagrees with them is either malicious or an idiot. Obama and his followers refuse to even recognize the possibility that an informed voter may support a decisive, experienced moderate for president over a radical who is only a few years removed from the state senate.— bon
- Let's be clear on this Obama is WAY WAY to the left on abortion. Look at the video clips where he would deny medical care to babies that survie abortions. You can also read some of the following articles. I nearly hit the roof when Obama supporter Mark Lamont Hill said Jesus would be "more progressive" then Obama on abortion. What is he nuts!?! http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207159750412&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull— thelastRepublicaninPhilly
- TSRP: Did you see his campaign backtracking on his accusation that the NRLC lied about his abortion record? Obama's people are now claiming he was distracted, or some such garbage. A video of a presidential candidate indigently accusing other of lying, and in doing so telling a lie himself, is pretty priceless.— bon
- jwad56....does your friend consider herself to be a "low information voter", and what, exactly, makes her a "low information voter"? Obama also caught himself when he nearly said he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas because he lacked the experience for the Supreme Court. It seems whenever he goes off his "change and hope" stump message and needs to get specific he really has problems. It will be interesting to see how he does in the debates, and it is easier to see why he balked at the town hall formats with McCain. Finally, to the "talking point detective", then I suppose you never voted for a Democrat candidate who appeared in a church pulpit during a campaign, or for a candidate who was endorsed by the Black Clergy in Philadephia or any other city, or for that matter, probably never voted!!!!!!— tom - wilmington, de
- JLB, We seem to be in the minority. Obama wants to think B4 he acts, while w/ McCain we get action swift and sure. We would have already bombed Iran, be at war w/ Russia & started a draft for the wars yet to be started. We've got to show the world what it means to do something WE don't like. Well, 2 comments for Obama, 3 comments unsure of Obama, and the balance of 16 AGAINST Obama. Come on Publicans what does that say? 8 more years of what? Go ahead, tell me how great things will be for you w/ McCain? How those it won't be great for don't deserve consideration?— Talvenada
- I loved how the MSM tried to say McCain had been listening to Obama, as Andrea Mitchell did yesterday on Meet The Press, and CNN did during the day yesterday. Of course, since McCain did better than Obama, he must have cheated...it could not have been because of the candidates themselves.— tom - wilmington, de
- tom - wilmington, de, I'm so glad that you mentiond the Clarence Thomas comment from Obama. I wanted to make sure that someone said it if Polman was going to try to not mention that as well. I was reading in the Wall Street Journal that Obama would not have voted for Clarance Thomas for the Supreme Court because he was "unqualified". The attached article poses the question perfectly; if Justice Thomas was unqualified for the Supreme Court, how can Obama possibly be qualified to be president? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121901817146948231.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks— thelastRepublicaninPhilly
- Actually, the exact quote on evil was "we see evil everyday on the streets of American cities", Obama never said anything about abused children in households. Why was that quote distorted in the post? Anyone have any ideas? Perhaps because he said "evil existed in America"? As for Talvenada, there is a difference between thinking before acting and hesitating before acting. Obama hesitates, and that is bad in a president. Also, McCain has never indicated he wanted a draft (where Obama is increasing the size of the military but never says how he will do this), he would not have bombed Iran and would not have gone to war with Russia. Stop making unsupportable statements unless you can back them up, unless you want all your posts to be just pure conjecture on your part.— tom - wilmington, de
- Talvenada, America will be FAR greater off with McCain as president then Obama. Obama doesn't think before he acts, he says something, realizes that people didn't like it then issues a few statements indicating, "what Obama meant to say". Every day more and more people are realizing that Obama is nothing but hype, and speeches; "America needs a president that is bigger then their speeches." Obama is completely wrong when it comes to matters of security (you know those Commander in Chief responsibilities) such as military, foreign relations, terrorism. Obama is wrong on economy, his raising taxes and windfall profits schemes will cause even more damage to the economy. Obama isn't even good on character issues with his associations with Wright, Ayers, Rezko..., his far left opinions on abortion and his unwillingness to take a firm stance on any voting issue by only voting "present". I actually do agree with McCain on many issues and have been a fan since 2000. He is the right man for the job we need right now!!! VOTE MCCAIN!!!!!!— thelastRepublicaninPhilly
- Tom - Point taken regarding the speed with which decisions need to be made in the information age - but just a quick question for you: Of the topics discussed in the forum the other night, which do you think are likely to be the topic of one of those pressing "3 AM" emergency calls? Morality? Abortion? The existence of evil? I'd suggest that the forum was set up to be an opportunity for the voters to see the DEPTH of the candidate's thinking. Obama rambled, no doubt. And McCain consistently fell back on his "talking points" - even when reminded NOT to do so by Pastor Warren. There are certainly quick decisions that need to be made by a President - just as there are ones where you'd prefer that the President put some real thought into them - and I certainly didn't get the impression that long-range thinking was exactly Senator McCain's strong suit.— JLB
- Comment removed.
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
