We remember Paul Newman today as a distinguished actor, philanthropist, committed progressive, and a truly decent soul. And on this day of his passing, his unique career does us an additional service. It helps us to understand why Obama won the debate and why he is going to win the election. As everyone knows, Paul Newman had a one in million smile, and he would certainly be flashing one now if he knew that he had made this contribution.
All we need is one film to make the case. While Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid may not be a great movie, it is a very good one, and perhaps more importantly, it was a timely one. It was a zeitgeist film. It connected with an audience that understood that time was out of joint in America, that we were adrift, that we were losing our collective soul, and that we needed to set things right. When the “bad guys” become the good guys, and “the law” is viewed as The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, you know that the world has been turned topsy-turvy. And when an audience feels so undermined that it can immediately connect with the line, “Who are those guys?” that is, those guys who can’t be stopped from chasing us (think here of the Vietnam War and a nation in turmoil back in 1969), you know that things have run amok.
Paul Newman’s films were often successful not only because of their success as works of art, but because they understood the importance of speaking to an audience, something which many of our pundits and commentators still do not seem to appreciate. How so? Last night I spent hours, UP@NIGHT, in true political junkie fashion, listening to commentators on the first debate between Obama and McCain. I would listen to the first round of comments, and then since I couldn’t be in two virtual places at once, turn to reruns of earlier broadcasts. I have also looked at many of the editorials in print today.
Time and time again, commentators insisted on using sports metaphors to describe the debate, primarily from boxing (points, knockouts) and baseball (home runs, strikes). There were exceptions, but just turn to the print media today. What’s the big headline? “No Knockout.” We hear about jabs that were thrown, and counter punches, etc. We hear criticisms that Obama didn’t throw enough punches, and that he could have brought McCain down by going more on the offense I am sure that you have heard this stuff. I won’t belabor the point.
But Obama understands, like Newman did, that acting is about audience. And presidential debates have more in common with acting than they do with sports contests. Or let me put this another way. Presidential debates are like auditions, and if you are going to be successful in an audition, you’ve got to be able to have a sense of what the director is looking for and the possibilities of a role. In this case, the director is the American people and the role is president. And the goal of the debater is not merely to score points, but to give a performance that resonates with the desires and hopes of the people. The debate is not an end. It is a means, and it is not a means to merely “winning” the debate in terms of points, but of winning the election.
I am not surprised that polls and focus groups show that more people thought Obama won. (Two examples, a USA Today/Gallop Poll, a CBS poll.) Nor am I surprised by the internal numbers in the polls showing that Obama went a long way toward crossing the biggest hurdle that he needed to cross, making voters feel comfortable with whether he is ready to be president. If you think about the debate in terms of an audition, then Obama was wildly successful. Obama appears to have convinced a significant number of people that he is ready to lead, cool under fire, knowledgeable, not easily flustered (by a cranky old guy telling you that “you don’t understand”), and energetic. Further, he reinforced his message that he understands “people like you and me,” which was already one of his strong suits. It was actually a beautifully orchestrated event, right down to the ads Obama has started to run.
Obama won this debate in the only terms that he needed to win it. He connected with a larger number of people in the audience than did McCain, and made them feel comfortable with his “playing the role” of president, while discussing a topic that was supposed to be McCain’s strong suit. Obama is going to win the election. And unlike Butch and Sundance, this story is going to have a happy ending.
I disagree with this blog’s point about what a debate should accomplish, and the comparison to theatre and sports. Leadership comes from knowledge/ experience and from following one’s GUT or HEART. Thus, a debate has more in common with a sports performance, where one plays from the gut, than a threatical one that is “pretend.” Certainly, if you care enough as an actor, your performance can APPEAR real, but we still do not know the INTENT of the actor. Whereas in sports, the INTENT and performance ARE real. Debates should be a REAL discussion on topics of leadership, not “acting” of same.
I followed this blog over from today’s LA Times Top of Ticket discussion on the debate.
Mr. Aboulafia writes in this blog:
“And debates have more in common with acting than they do with sports contests. Or let me put this another way. Debates are like auditions, and if you are going to be successful in an audition you’ve got to be able to have a sense of what the director is looking for and the possibilities of a role.”
Thank you for your comment.
I should have been more explicit, and I will be. I am referring to presidential debates, which have held a unique place in the American system for decades. They cannot be judged in the same manner as one would judge a college debate, for example.
Regarding actors: the idea here is that an actor must be aware of the audience the he or she is trying to reach. This does not make acting less real than a sporting event. Just different. The ball player is primarily interested in winning the game. The actor/debater is interested in winning over the audience. Of course winning over the audience does require a show of knowledge. I never denied this. (In fact, I mentioned it as one of Obama’s achievements.) But a presidential debate is more than this. And this is why the “winners” of the debates never seem to just win on points.
I really liked this post, and I agree with it. The sports metaphors never worked for me. Typical talking head guyspeak. Both of my kids study acting and I often help them with their audition pieces and I have learned alot from them. I agree – the debate was an audition, and Obama knew his character’s intention and motivation, and his audience, through and through. Its always so nice when someone gives you a new framework for seeing politics. Thanks for that.
it’s hard not to admire Paul Newman for putting his money to work in such productive ways, such as his Newman’s Own line–high quality stuff and the proceeds go to good causes… very smart.
We are too intelligent to fall for McCain and Palin’s tactics! There is too much at stake for us to let the Hate mongers in this country win, not this time! Do not become complacent or overconfident! Barack Obama CAN lose this election! Don’t worry about what anyone says! Don’t pay attention to the polls! People have had big leads in the polls and lost on Election Day! Just get out and VOTE! Vote early! Don’t wait until the last minute! Don’t become overconfident! When you are VOTING there will be extremely long lines, but be determined and vigilant! Obama must win this election! Vote! VOTE! VOTE! The world is watching!