|
I don't know who "won;" I guess I'll let the polls tell us that. Edwards had to at least look like he knew what he was doing and handle himself well, and he did that. He presented himself as a solid candidate for vice president, despite Cheney's efforts to paint him as not up to the job.
I've never really seen Cheney in action other than on a podium, and this debate gave me a really clear picture of who he is. I have met guys like him before, in business and in government. They have the ability to talk endlessly and relentlessly and to counter any point someone raises against them with a torrent of counterpoints. They win by wearing down the other side, if the other side is less confident in their answers.
The thing is, such guys often have the wrong answer to complex problems, because they're not in the habit of accepting advice: conflicts with their Iron Man image. They never falter, never deviate from their paths, and never admit past mistakes except to say that they were unimportant (or that your recollection is wrong). Such tactics will absolutely win the battle in any bureaucracy, where sheer force of will matters less than facts.
And guys like this can absolutely take an organization right off a cliff, when they're wrong. After they win the bureaucratic battle, nobody challenges anything they say anymore. They're in complete control.
The fun thing about these guys is, often they're not the number 1 guy in the organization. More likely they're number 2, and number 1 is a doofus who they control. I know it sounds like I'm trying to tailor my argument to the situation, but it's true. At least, I've worked in two organizations like this, where #2 was a feared and disliked Master of the Bureaucracy with all the answers, and #1 was just a figurehead who relied on the bounteous flow of information and advice from #2.
|