David T. Jones: Obama’s foreign policy experience showed, but the third US presidential debate was a draw

Political debates have become a touchstone of Western democracies (One can hardly conceive of Russian President Putin so contending with his strawman adversaries). They are popular as electorates seek to discern something that provides defining insight into the minds and personalities of the candidates beyond media storms of scripted speeches/press releases, dueling negative 30-second advertisements, and ritualized television appearances with tame talk show hosts.

An incumbent president needs to demonstrate his four-year record qualifies him for a renewed contract; that he is still "up to the job"; and that he is clearly better than the challenger. Sometimes it is easy: Bill Clinton vs. Bob Dole in 1996 held nothing but positives for Clinton, and Dole exhibited the charisma of an armchair. But it was harder for Ronald Reagan in 1984 in the first debate against Walter Mondale — Reagan appeared hesitant and invidious whispers about his age circulated. Reagan recovered in the second debate epitomized by the two-liner, "I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."

In many respects, a challenger has the more difficult task. He must demonstrate that he is safe, acceptable, and capable — "presidential" in a word. During the John F. Kennedy - Richard Nixon 1960 debate, Kennedy overcame Nixon's debater skills and eight years of experience as vice president; JFK appeared dynamic and confident. In 1980, Reagan needed to prove that he was not a wild cowboy who would unleash nuclear war in a fit of absent-mindedness. And he showed a genial, relaxed touch against incumbent Jimmy Carter, who already was viewed as a failed president.

The Romney-Obama debates fit both paradigms. Republican challenger Mitt Romney needed to show "presidential" qualities; he did so effectively in the first debate when he was personally dynamic, articulate, and in full command of substance. He blew away the caricature that he was a robotic CEO who would drown kittens after firing you. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama was startlingly flat, almost diffident, and disengaged. One might imagine he had celebrated his wedding anniversary early and was suffering from post-coital tristesse. Observers unanimously agreed Obama had been decisively defeated — subsequently Romney surged in the polls.

In the second debate, "The Empire Strikes Back" could have been the theme. Obama recovered his "mojo" and carried arguments vigorously to Romney who struck back with equal vigor. Obama revived disconcerted Democrats but did not fully counter Romney's polling surge.

The third debate usually demonstrates an incumbent president's strength. Obvious policy failures offered Romney numerous attack opportunities: catastrophe in Benghazi; an al-Quaeda resurgence; an "Arab Spring" morphing into bitter winter; Iran's centrifuges spinning steadily toward providing nuclear capability; implacable Israeli-Palestinian hostility; and relations with Russia impervious to being "reset." Romney, however, did not exploit the confused, indeed erroneous Obama comments on Benghazi, but rather pushed tougher alternative policies to end Iran's nuclear program, counter terrorism, and addressing Chinese "trade war" tactics.

Throughout the debate, Obama attacked and interrupted, claiming Romney's policies were "wrong and reckless" — both in foreign and domestic affairs. Indeed, adroitly confrontational segues into national economic policy probably absorbed a quarter of the debate. Predictably, Obama's greater experience in foreign affairs showed, but Romney demonstrated sufficient competence to dispel concerns of ignorance. It was a draw — and a draw favors the challenger.

David T. Jones is a retired State Department Senior Foreign Service Career Officer and a frequent contributor to American Diplomacy. During a career that spanned over 30 years, he concentrated on politico-military issues, serving for the Army Chief of Staff. He is co-author of Uneasy Neighbor(u)rs, a study of American-Canadian bilateral concerns and has published several hundred articles, columns, and reviews on U.S. - Canadian bilateral issues and general foreign policy.