I spent a significant portion of my life as an Army intelligence officer - and before you say it, be certain that I've heard all of the jokes about that being an oxymoronic phrase. One of the things that I learned in my training is this: never assume that your adversary is less intelligent than you are. Doing so is the first step along the path to failure. That phrase came to mind as I sit here the day after the spectacle of the first president debate of the season.
I won't spend much time commenting on what took place last evening; there are already a plethora of discussions going on regarding the demeanor of the participants, the inefficacy of the moderator, and just the general feel the event of that of watching a schoolyard bully picking on another student while a substitute teacher helplessly looks upon the scene. Instead, I want to spend time looking at the strategic implications of the President’s approach. I think the mistake that many of us will make is to believe that anything we saw from the president was less than calculated and planned. Making that mistake takes us down the ill-advised path that my instructor warned me against so many decades ago. If we assume a strategic vision and intellect on the part of the President, then we must ask what hoped to gain and what have we learned.
Here's my theory:
1. While the incumbent, the President has made the decision that he cannot win purely (or even primarily) on the issues. Therefore he must take another approach if he wishes to gain four more years in office.
2. The President is well aware that there are large portions of the population that have already made their decision regarding their vote. The debates are not going to persuade either of these factions in any way. Therefore, the debate strategy should be to (a) excite his base, (b) snare undecided voters, or (c)render undecided voters irrelevant to the calculus. I believe much of his approach last night was calculated to impact Option C.
3. If (1) and (2) are correct, then we must look at the message that he gave last night to the undecided voter. I would contend that that message is one of hopelessness and/or weakness. Hopelessness was conveyed by the complete dismissal of any of the agreed-upon debate rules. The President’s message to the voters here was, "I'm going to do whatever I want anyway, regardless of the rules, so in the end will your vote really matter? Why not just stay home? The President also sough to portray Biden as weak in his constant haranguing of the candidate. The message here was, “See how easy it is for me to make your best hope of defeating me look like an idiot? Are you sure you want to vote for this guy?"
4. The desired end result of this approach is to either have people question whether their vote matters (in which case they will stay home) or whether a vote for Biden will be impactful (in which case they will select a third party candidate which will draw votes from the Democratic challenger). Either result increases the probability of a Trump election.
You have to admit there is a certain brilliance to the approach.
I mean, how many people left last night’s spectacle feeling deflated? How many people began to question (once again) whether Biden was the right choice? How many people said (only half jokingly) that they wished Kanye had successfully gotten on the ballot in their state? How many people, if they choose to vote at all, will look for a "viable" third party candidate because of their feelings of disgust and/or disappointment at the two main contenders?
How many people were left with a sense of fear regarding the selection? Fear that, regardless of the outcome, there will be bloodshed in our streets?
Whether we like it or not, whether we admit it or not, there is a two party system in this nation. While in theory there are multiple avenues and multiple parties, there are only two viable choices during any presidential election to date. This year that choice boils down to the same choice that you have in a game of bridge: Trump or no Trump. Every vote that is not cast or that is cast for a nonviable third party candidate becomes, in effect, a vote for the incumbent. If the incumbent can increase your level of hopelessness or despair regarding the election, he wins.
In short: while hope is not a strategy in conflict, hopelessness has certainly become one in this election.
Keep your eyes on the prize and don't under estimate the players the board.
My two cents.
Comments