Style Beats Substance in First Presidential Debate
Richard O’Dor, East Carolina University
Sun Tzu’s The Art of War describes how to prepare for an attack from aggressors. It’s as pertinent today
as it was 2,500 years ago. James Clavell proposes, in his edition of The Art of War, that the text can be
useful in all kinds of ordinary conflicts. It’s extremely applicable in understanding last night’s presidential
debate between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney.
Romney’s win over Obama was due to style overwhelming substance. Conflicts are struggles against
change. For Obama, the concept “Change” worked for his 2008 campaign and undercut him in the debate.
Change was the theme of all of Romney’s attacks and he didn’t have to use the word, nor provide
substance. Sun Tzu advocates that to win, play off of your opponent’s weakness. It becomes your
strength. A presidential incumbent will always be at a disadvantage in a domestic debate because the
nation’s problems become the incumbent’s baggage, regardless whether they were created on his watch,
or by a dysfunctional Congress.
Unlike an academic debate, a political debate reverses the burdens. In an academic debate change is risky.
For a political debate, the status quo carries more risk than the prospect of proposed change, even if the
change is vaguely described by the candidate. Specifics can be inconsistent as long as the goal remains
the focus. Romney was effective at maintaining the theme of building a strong economy as his focus.
Moderating his 12th presidential debate, Jim Lehrer spoke the word “jobs” in each of his first two
sentences. It was the second most important word of the night, just behind “taxes.” Romney used “taxes”
23 times to Obama’s 13. “Jobs” was in second place with a count of 18 for Romney and 11 for Obama.
“Economy” came in third with Romney mentioning it 15 times and Obama 3 times. Lehrer said the word
three times more than the President. In a simple count of these three words, Romney won 56 to 27.
Counting words reveals the Republican debate strategy; win by using power words (in this debate – taxes,
jobs, economy) and add an element that creates the illusion of detail, such as numbering your responses.
Reflecting some pre-debate coaching, Romney unveiled the enumeration strategy throughout the evening.
It gave his responses an air of detail that they did not actually possess. Numbering is a strategy heavily
used in academic debate. College debaters create long lists of enumerated arguments challenging their
opponents to respond to each and every one, regardless whether those arguments contain any substance.
For Sun Tzu preparation is the key to winning. Obama was prepared only to respond, allowing Romney to
guide the agenda like a Bain boardroom, even to the point of speaking over the moderator many times.
Obama’s halting style and hesitations broke up the flow of his responses giving Romney more power. It
made the President seem apologetic in his justifications. Romney came across every bit the executive
controlling the dialogue and ordering the moderator to follow his lead. Romney’s volume, speech rate,
and fluid delivery all contributed to the powerful executive impression. By being prepared only to
respond, Obama allowed Romney to dump a litany of rehearsed arguments. President Obama didn’t
prepare for the Romney that showed up last night. Obama should have responded with a scrappier fastpaced conversational style. He was too passive. Voters may want cooperation, but for a debate they want
clash, rather than explanations.
Romney won the debate with the same strategy his campaign has used, limit the details. It’s a debate
strategy that should have been foreseen by the Obama campaign. There is the moment, and then there is
the context in which the moment takes place. Every person watching the debate knew the President had at
his disposal weapons that he was choosing not use (47%, offshore bank accounts, Bain Capital,
unreleased tax returns, and 14% tax rate). These arguments flowed through social media conversations.
The debate generated 10.3 million Tweets in 90 minutes, a new record. The Twitter Political Index for
October 5th at 8pm ET will illustrate how these conversations played out.
Romney’s strategy worked for this domestic themed debate. It won’t work for the next two debates. His
opponent may be more prepared for the strategy. A power word strategy for foreign policy has pitfalls.
The issues are vastly more complex and not well understood. Foreign policy words are not as simple as 1)
taxes, 2) jobs and 3) economy. Romney will need to shed the boardroom executive demeanor and appear
more presidential. The test for Mitt Romney in the next debate, a town meeting format, is that voters will
be asking the questions and demanding specific details. The challenge for President Obama, who has
more foreign policy experience, will be to resist making every answer a teachable moment. He needs to
have a conversation instead of reacting with lengthy formal explanations. As Sun Tzu warns, preparation
is key to winning.