Charles Krauthammer is a respected political
columnist who has been involved in the political scene since 1980. Not only is
he a brilliant columnist (some would say THE columnist), but he also holds a
Doctorate of Medicine and was board certified in psychiatry in 1984. Perhaps it
is his extensive experience not only in the political arena, but also in the
psychiatric one which makes his recent article, Romney by Two Touchdowns (Krauthammer,
Washington Post, 10/4/12), so mystifying to me.
In his article, Krauthammer asserted
that it was Romney who won the debate. In fact, he does a very good job in
stating his claims and making them seem well thought out and appetizing to all
audiences (of course his credibility and experience also plays a crucial part
in his words having more weight). Though the article has an incredibly
anti-Obama view (as do most of his other editorial articles), he posits his
opinions in such a way to make himself appear an authority rather than an enemy
or someone just spewing vitriol.
Though the article is a very
entertaining read, it doesn’t really lay out exactly how Romney defeated Obama
in the debate. Certainly, Krauthammer offers a myriad of very subjective
reasons; that Romney offered “a
remarkable display of confidence, knowledge and nerve” and that Obama
was “detached, meandering, unsure”. Krauthammer insists that Romney give
concrete evidence as to where he stood, but doesn’t really outline it for those
of us who have watched the debate over and still can’t make heads or tails of
the Republican candidate.
Personally,
I feel that Krauthammer was completely off-base with this article. It
absolutely baffles me as to how someone with an MD in psychiatry could read
Romney as anything but aggressive, duplicitous, and potentially psychotic. Romney’s
performance reminded me of the character Patrick Bateman from American Psycho.
I did see a confidence in Romney, but it was coupled with a positively
murderous look. While watching a debate for the second time, I noticed that
when Romney was spouting off buzzwords and pseudo-scripted nonsense, he did
look quite affable and charismatic. However, any time he was questioned or
asked to explain something, his eyes turned dark and beady and he took on a
very predatory mien. As for knowledge, I didn’t really perceive either
candidate to be particularly knowledgeable, but I certainly don’t feel Romney
had an edge on President Obama in that category. Rather, I felt the opposite
was true. And nerve? Well, Krauthammer, you’ve got that right. Romney sure did
have a lot of nerve, but is that what we want in our president? A murderous,
self-centered psychopath who can’t for the life of him clarify and quantify his
statements? I don’t want that kind of president. Romney was consistently rude
and overly aggressive, and I feel that Obama was backed into a corner by the
republican candidate’s behavior. If Obama were to have escalated the debate to
Romney’s level of hostility, we would have likely seen a verbal bloodbath on
national television.
Certainly,
it doesn’t surprise me when the major conservative-run news networks tout
Romney as being a “master debater” and having “handily won”; these
predominantly male-run networks would, of course, see someone as being rude,
aggressive and hostile as doing a good job, so long as it was a hostility
aligned with their viewpoints. I posit that if Obama were to have acted as
Romney did, these same networks who have been claiming him small and unsure
would be vilifying him for his behavior. That being said, I am quite surprised
that someone with a background in psychiatry--a doctoral degree, in fact--would
applaud Romney’s “step off my ####” style of debating. In a debate one should
be confident and able to state and defend your viewpoint with concise, CORRECT
facts. Neither candidate, in my opinion, was able to do so…but Romney certainly
had no edge in my mind by being rude and tossing around buzz words. Critics
said that Obama looking down and looking away made him appear unsure. However,
it is commonly known that looking away from a speaker more often than not
indicates disbelief or boredom. For someone who was chief resident at
Massachusetts General Hospital to not focus on these obviously known body cues
is quite strange to me.
Perhaps
social media and politics in general have taken their toll on the public at
large. No longer do people analyze the whole picture piece by piece. Instead,
they focus on what they want to see and enter into echo chambers where people
aligned of the same viewpoints can affirm to one another that they are Right
and of the Correct view. Information being so readily accessible is both a boon
and a curse in that respect, you can get what you need at lightning speed, but
that speed has made people lazy and eliminated the need in their minds for
cross-referencing and analysis done by the self. Personally, I’m not certain
either candidate won the debate. I don’t think a debate so wildly unformatted and
unorganized can be said to have a winner.
