X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

Mitt Romney raises (low) expectations in first presidential debate

4 October 2012

9:24 AM

4 October 2012

9:24 AM

It’s been quite a week for weird would-be national leaders. First we had Ed Miliband deliver the best speech of his life in Manchester. And, last night, Mitt Romney bettered Barack Obama in the first presidential debate.

The two men are at very different stages of their political cycles – Romney has 30 days until his election, Miliband 30 months – but they face similar challenges. And, to their credit, both approached their performances – for that is what modern political speeches and debates amount to – with verve, poise and even glimpses of audacity.

Where Miliband’s boldness came in his conception of ‘One Nation Labour’, Romney’s came in his presentation of moderation. Romney’s record in Massachusetts, when he was governor with a legislature that was 87 per cent Democrat, as he reminded the audience on several occasions, provides substance to his claim. Indeed rather too much substance for the many Republicans who abhor the health care plan he introduced, and which Obamacare has strong echoes of.

Yet, so far this campaign, Romney has too often seemed a man determined to repudiate his moderation. It was a policy that was understandable enough when he was campaigning against men like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in the Republican primaries. But the baffling aspect of Romney’s campaign is it has ignored the conventional wisdom of moving to the centre after securing the nomination. If anything, he has moved further to the right – in choosing Paul Ryan as his running-mate, and advocating both vast increases in military expenditure and a cut in the top rate of income tax to 25 per cent. Such moves were explained by a need to ensure the Republican base turned out, a logic that ignored that the mere presence of Barack Obama on ballot papers provides motivation enough.

[Alt-Text]


Romney’s performance seemed a belated rejection of his previous approach. In his tone, and presentation of himself as both the savior of Medicare and a balanced budget, Romney’s attempted grab of the centre ground further evoked Miliband. The Romney on show in this debate shirked ostentatious partisanship but rather presented a polished pitch to become America’s next CEO.

It was certainly more effective than most had expected, with US television networks near unanimous in ‘calling’ the debate for Romney. But it lacked a real debate moment – like Bill Clinton’s memorable town hall conversation in 1992 or Ronald Reagan’s ‘Are you better off than four years ago?’ attack on Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Moreover, that there are two more debates may work against Romney. The good press of his own performance was augmented by a combination of both the low expectations surrounding Romney and the seeming passivity and stumbling of many of Obama’s interjections, which lacked the élan he displayed when bidding for the presidency four years ago.

But Romney’s display has instantly raised the bar of what people will expect from him come 16 October, the date of the second presidential debate, while expectations for Obama will lower. Moreover, if Obama really did suffer from a lack of preparation, which would be a damning indictment of his campaign, he will no longer be able to put off his homework. Certainly, Obama will not neglect to mention Romney’s 47 per cent comment or involvement with Bain Capital next time.

Such was the force with which Romney spoke that the twitterati greeted the news that he had actually spoken for four minutes less than Obama with incredulity. Yet a truly transformative night this was not – especially in the context of US election expert Nate Silver giving Obama an 86 per cent chance of winning on 6 November. Romney’s next two debate performances must surpass this, impressive as it was. But it is a paradox that having so many debates dilutes their impact, allowing the weaker debater to address shortcomings and voters to switch off; indeed, how different would the last UK election have been had there been no debates following the Cleggmania of the first?

So both Romney and Miliband can reflect that, this week, the months of preparation paid off. But ultimately the two challengers face very similar problems. For all the excellence of their performances this week, there is a dichotomy between the moderate, centrist rhetoric they employed and the actual policies they propose. And, in Romney’s case, the Democrats are about to make sure every swing state voter knows it.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close