Perry’s Debating Smile
Daniel Berman agrees with most that Perry performed badly, but it was not so much the attacks as how he responded to them.
16 Sep 2011, 10:30
Rick Perry: Smug?
The recent Republican Presidential debate had some of the same challenges for Rick Perry. Mechanically, his performance was on par with that in last week’s debate for which the consensus is that he won or at least tied, which from his present position is the same thing. In both debates he faced attacks from Mitt Romney and the moderators regarding his views on social security, in both Michele Bachman attempted to demagogue his support of mandatory HPV vaccination for girls, and in both Ron Paul displayed a visceral dislike for his home state Governor. If anything Perry should have had the advantage this time. The attacks on Social Security were both foreseen, and undermined as a function of the revelation of questionable past statements on the parts of his opponents regarding the same issue, while Bachman entered as a fading candidate, threatened with slipping into Santorum and Gingrich territory in terms of relevance.
But something in the post-debate news seems to have gone wrong. Granted Perry has countered Romney’s Pawlenty endorsement with endorsements of his own from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, but within the coverage of the debate there seems to be a consensus that Perry came out looking the part of the loser.
In a sense, Perry’s problem was that as the frontrunner he entered the debate with a target painted on his back, and much of the debate was taken up by the Texas Governor attempting to head off attacks from both the right and left. But he had faced many of these same issues before, not least last week. What also seemed to cause him difficulties was the way he responded to the debate. At last week’s debate he seemed to become bored and irritable towards the end. This time those issues were on display from the very beginning. This led to a contrast in how observers reacted to the attacks aimed at the Texas Governor.
In the first debate he looked ambushed, the victim of opportunistic attacks from all sides, the diversity of which and the number of directions from which they originated making him look the giant fending off petty assailants. This time however Perry was different. He was smug. He smiled off questions and not pleasantly, and seemed to view the process and his opponents as mere irritations on his inevitable path to the nomination, pygmies who should have been grateful for his condescending to share the stage with them. One almost squirmed when he told Romney in a dismissive manner laced with ill-humor "You were doing pretty good until you got to talking poker”. Superficially it was friendly, but beneath lay a mockery retaliating for Romney’s decision to question his record in Texas. Suddenly any viewers who had been through a US High School remembered where they had heard that tone before, from the insecure jock from a good family who felt obligated to ensure that everyone at all times was aware of their proper place on the school pecking order.
In a sense this should not be news. New York Monthly, in a recent piece on him, quoted a senior Texas political figure noting that difference between Perry and Bush, was that Bush governed in a time when Democrats still mattered in Texas, and correspondingly bipartisanship was rewarded. By Perry’s time there was no threat of Democratic opposition, only a battle between moderate and conservative Republicans, and as a result Perry was free to treat his opposition, both intra and inter-party, with contempt, because there were no negative consequences for doing so. To Republicans in a safe Republican state this was an asset not a failing, a rubbing in of the Democrats ineffectualness, and for conservative Republicans, moderates were deserving of the same disdain. But it also explains why if most politicians have at least some appeal, virtually every one of Perry’s past political opponents seems not to dislike but to loathe him. Hence Karl Rove’s quixotic anti-Perry crusade, which seems to have little point other than to damage him.
All of the traits that made Perry popular with conservative Texans, but toxic to Democrats and moderate Republicans over his ten years in Texas were suddenly on display in the second debate. The dismissive, contemptuous edge to the humor, making it clear not only was he ignoring what they had to say but he was making sure they knew he was, it was all there. Suddenly one could almost guess why Ron Paul seemed to personally dislike him so much.
This performance was all the more jarring because Mitt Romney seemed to find his groove. Freed from the need to appeal to the Right by Perry, and forced by necessity to perform, Romney reinforced one of the fundamental truths about his political history that he performs best in adversity. The greatest seven days of his political career were those in 2008 between his loss in New Hampshire and his victory in Michigan. For a week he seemed to be a man driven, throwing off advice, and actually making a case for policies he believed in. On the Romneycare question, he actually raised one of the real problems of healthcare, lost beneath an overly principled debate brought on by Obamacare; that the US spends more than any other developed country on healthcare, yet gets mediocre results. The present system is fundamentally wasteful on a massive scale, because it does not factor cost into decision-making.
On other questions Romney cited examples, figures, and experiences. Here was someone you could easily imagine outmaneuvering Obama, and holding him to account on the Stimulus, Healthcare, and the Economy. Perry on the other hand provided a preview of a different kind. Obama has suffered from the fact that even more than the class nerd; the teacher’s pet is among the most loathed characters in the American psyche. But if there is one figure more distrusted, it is the class bully, since as much as onlookers may appreciate this particular choice of victim, they also know that they would as easily target them. It is one thing for Perry to dismiss Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachman as unworthy of his time or respect; they are gadflies by this point. He can even get away with jeering Romney, "You were doing pretty good until you got to talking poker.” But to treat the President of the United States in that manner, even an unpopular one would be another matter, the prospect of which should concern Republican primary voters.
Comments (0)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed