Swagger and Sophistry at the Iowa GOP Debate

At this point, I don't have much of a stake in who wins the Republican nomination, but I do have some opinions regarding the candidates at last night's debate:

First, Rick Santorum was right about being slighted on talking time. I know he says dumb things now and then, but fair is fair.

Second, Michelle Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty are amateurs. They spent the entire night in the sandbox, throwing boogers at each other. And they don't give arguments; they just say "my record, my record" over and over again, which is not the brightest move, given the relatively stratospheric qualifications of others competing.

Newt, on the other hand, surprised me. I was ready to write this guy off, but he was good last night. He rebuked Chris Wallace with authority and he looked consistently relaxed the whole evening. When he cited cases and statistics, he did so naturally, as if he actually has some experience and doesn't need to memorize a list of facts off a card before taking the stage. This was not the case for any of the others, save perhaps Herman Cain, believe it or not. I did find Newt's attempts to capitalize on Reagan's success objectionable, but he largely vitiated the offense in most cases by providing other examples to make the same point. Of course, this "I'm too experienced to be worried" projection was probably his strategy, but the point is, he pulled it off. All in all, I'd say he outperformed the rest of the group.

And who doesn't love Ron Paul? Every time he starts ranting about the Iraq war with that high-pitched voice of his, I want to give him a big bear hug. Moreover, even though nobody has any idea what the country would look like if anyone actually listened to him, the guy makes a lot of sense.

My overall assessment, without further commentary, is that if last night's debate were the winnowing fork, there wouldn't be anyone left but Mit, Newt, and Paul. The rest of the candidates handled themselves with mediocrity at best and should go home.

Changing the Subject

I recently came across the following aphorism:

A fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject.

The quote is often attributed to Winston Churchill, though Churchill scholar Richard Langworth insists otherwise (see here).

For my own part, I'm less interested in who said it or in whether it accurately describes a "fanatic" as I am in what it says about discussion and debate in friendly and polite settings.

Some of the standard adages floating around on this topic are "don't talk about religion and politics" and "don't give your opinion on a subject unless asked." The problem with the first of these is that it precludes some of the most stimulating and life-giving conversations possible for all parties involved. The problem with the second is that, for all the self-denial endured, the principle doesn't accomplish much in terms of its intention. It assumes either that most people don't ask for others' opinions or that, when they do, they actually want to hear them. In reality, people frequently ask for others' views on hot topics, seemingly in hopes that their interlocutor agrees with them or at least doesn't have a good reason for disagreeing. When such hopes are dashed, uncomfortable interaction ensues and it doesn't make much difference that the interlocutor was officially asked to opine.

The bottom line is that, at times, we all want to talk about the big, important subjects and it's simply not reasonable to expect agreement all or even most of the time. The key, then, is not how we get into the debate, but how we get out of it (and what we do while we're there). This is why the quote is important. In a polite setting -- for example, dinner with friends, as opposed to, say, arguing with a lover about something that has to be resolved (use your imagination) -- if the conversation is going badly enough for it to be obvious that one interlocutor is no longer interested in convincing or in being convinced, the debate should be over and someone (hint: the one still enjoying the debate) should change the subject. Otherwise, a great deal is fair in love in war, so long as the lovers and warriors are still interested in loving and warring, respectively.