CONSTITUENCIES

There are two kinds of people: people who win debates, and people who lose debates.

People who lose debates go to state colleges or don't go. Maybe they major in business and make good money, maybe they hang out and work as truckdrivers or 7-11 clerks. They live mostly in the heartland. They go to church and believe in God. They love their country because someone told them to. Fat books confuse them first, then bore them. They take care of their families first, and don't have time for much else.

People who win debates go to top schools. They major in philosophy or poli-sci or women's studies. Some go to law school and end up making a lot of money. Some turn into activists of one kind or another and stay poor. If they end up in normal jobs, they do so grudgingly. They read good literature. They gravitate to big coastal metropolises like DC, New York, Boston, San Francisco. They're agnostic or atheist. They look towards Europe, and frankly they're a bit ashamed that they still live in the same country with all those duds in Indiana.

Each guy was appealing to his constituency last night.

Bush doesn't know how to win a debate. He seems to think it's about facts, so he talks about $35 billion this and African rainy season that. He mentions facts that don't even strengthen his position, like the fact that sanctions on Iran were in place before he came to Washington. As if he thinks he's there to inform the viewers, rather than to WIN! Kerry responds by exuding an "I AM RIGHT" aura. He has a consistent position on Iraq. Bush is wrong, he is right. It's very potent. I found it compelling. Didn't you?

But at the end of the day, what's the link between winning debates and being a good president? I must be missing something here...