Compare Skill Sets

Never confuse philosophical debates with the game of chess. Although both are contests with winners and losers, the outcome of debates are determined by many subjective factors.

A debate is influenced by the physical appearance, likeability, facial and body gestures, attire, voice intonation and the words chosen by the participants. The winner is helped by these factors, plus the predisposition of the judges.

In many ways, debates are beauty contests. A weak argument, well presented, can trounce a strong argument poorly delivered. A debate can be won by the participant who puts the “best shine on his or her shoes.”

In contrast, chess depends on strategy and execution. With the exception of intimidation, subjective factors don’t influence the outcome. It’s a game of absolutes. The results become unalterable historic facts which denote the exact move and counter move that turned the tide.

That’s the real world that the President of the United States faces. Each day the White House awakes to a zero sum game of life and death. The person seated in the Oval Office plays chess with the world. Presidents and US opponents come and go, but the responsibility to win and the consequences of a loss are constants.

The presidential contest is a debate which employs the strategy of chess. The outcome is determined by the campaigns’ plan, execution and equally important, the voters’ perception of the candidates. There are no rules. The campaigns and candidates influence, but can’t control the opponents’ moves, and their resources are always limited.

That’s the world the President of the United States faces. But unlike the candidates’ lyrical theatrics, a president’s decisions impact the security and well-being of 300 million citizens. Favorable sound bites in the evening news don’t define presidential leadership, or change the endgame.

And unlike chess opponents, presidential candidates can take their moves back. The pundits and party hacks, depending on their political affiliation, bless or disparage these message changes as either refinements or backing out of a dead-end.

There is a red flag that is ignored by these reactions to campaign about-faces. It’s one thing for a political candidate to retreat to higher ground and another for the President of the United States. The latter can’t pull the trigger and take the bullet back. The nation lives with the consequences.

There is compromise, but no acceptable margin for error in the White House. A charismatic presidential candidate can say “oops” and survive, but presidents don’t have this luxury. No candidate, who survives on backtracking or skirts the issues, is ready to assume the office.

The 2008 presidential campaign is a competition between Senator Obama, a polished speaker with shiny shoes, and a seasoned, international chess player, Senator McCain. Either can win.

Let’s hope the electorate understands we are war and pretty doesn’t count. We need a leader who will strengthen the battlements and dominate the chess board; not one who will weaken the US position to appease the players sitting on the opposite side of the board.