The October 16, 2018 Cruz-O’Rourke Debate: What Happened to the Issues?

Media pundits noted that Beto O’Rourke hit back harder at Ted Cruz in their second debate. He did. For example, he quoted Donald Trump about “Lyin’ Ted.” Cruz hit back hard at O’Rourke, mostly by misrepresenting some of O’Rourke’s opinions. To be fair, O’Rourke also misrepresented some of Cruz’ actions. The debate was a fact-checkers’ delight and a truth-seekers' nightmare. But what happened to the issues? They fizzled away, that’s what happened.

Ted Cruz

Well, okay, Cruz and O’Rourke did discuss issues in a superficial way. O’Rourke started off by talking about Russian interference in United States’ elections and criticized Cruz for voting against protecting the Mueller investigation. Cruz claimed that O’Rourke wanted to “undermine the 2^nd Amendment.” This is a standard Republican talking point whenever Democrats propose even modest gun control regulations, such as banning assault rifle sales or restricting gun purchases by known terrorists. Pro-gun politicians usually oppose any firearms restrictions whatsoever. (See my earlier blog post about Second Amendmentrhetoric.)

Challenged about climate change, Cruz hedged: “I believe in science.”  He shifted from scientific approach to a political approach: “far too many Democrats approach this issue . . . as a matter of government power.” That misses the point, of course, since the question was whether he believe that climate change was a problem. But I think that he wanted to miss the point: you don't want to look like a scientific ignoramus during a televised debate. You want to save the ignorance for your pep rallies.

Beto O'Rourke

Cruz questionably accused O’Rourke of favoring a “$10 a barrel of tax on every barrel of oil produced in the state of Texas.” He said that O’Rourke “makes up positions and votes that I’ve never made.” Yet, O’Rourke responded that “Climate is changing, and man-made climate change is a fact.” None of that addressed issues in any depth.

Instead, the candidates associated one another with extreme positions. For example, Cruz said that “Congressman O’Rourke sides with liberal extremists on the national level instead of the people of Texas and jobs in Texas.” Since many Texas voters are conservative, Cruz felt that he could label O’Rourke’s positions,which are mostly moderate, as extreme.

Why so little talk about issues, facts and figures, or sources of the kind that any good high school debater would use? First, the debate format imposed absurd limits: 90-second speeches? That’s not much longer than a TV commercial spot. Every time one of the candidates tried to say something in depth, the moderators told him that his time was up.

Second, most political candidates today are not trying to prove their points, but only to motivate people who already support them. They are not trying to persuade; they just want to get people to vote. That doesn’t require proof; it just requires bald assertions that reinforce voters' preconceived ideas. Third, candidates underestimate the public’s desire to figure things out. Fourth, the candidates might simply not have been prepared to do anything more than to spout off standard liberal and conservative talking points. To discuss issues, you need to know the issues. I’m not sure that either Cruz or O’Rourke did.

What about O’Rourke’s opening “Lyin’ Ted” wisecrack? That was a bad idea. I’m sure that, as Cruz said, his advisors had tested the comment with focus groups or something. But O’Rourke missed the point. First, cognitive scientist George Lakoff explains that conservatives work with metaphors of strength and power, while liberals work with nurturing metaphors. Conservatives want leaders to be tough and strong. Liberals want leaders who will be wise and smart. Call Cruz a liar? His supporters probably don’t care. They just want him to be strong. Democrats already mistrust Cruz. O’Rourke would have done better to focus on issues that made him look wise and smart: to start off by supporting support Medicare and Medicaid, to stop Russian interference, to stand up for the environment. Those are things that his supporters care about. His wisecrack got all the attention, which detracted from his issues positions.

So, O'Rourke did need to hit back, but he chose a poor tactic.  

P.S.: Candidates often call one another liars. They are usually right. Politicians do tell many lies. Candidates lie because they are liars; they lie because they are uninformed, and they lie because often all they want to do is to repeat standard talking points. Two suggestions: (1) tell the truth, and (2) give proof for your points. If you want people to think that you are honest, try being honest. Persuasion specialists know that truth’s persuasive effects are much weaker than what people think, but what else can we offer? (See Bryan Caplan’s wonderful book, The Myth of the Rational Voter.)

P.P.S.: This wasn’t a very good debate, but it was better than the 2016 Clinton-Trump debates, which set a new standard for bad debating. As long as we keep voting for ignorant candidates, however, we will get ignorant government officials.

Image of Ted Cruz: official US Senate portrait, via Wikimedia.

Image of Beto O'Rourke, official US Congress photo