Romney Won the Debate, Not the War

American politicians are very good at delivering first-class political shows. They know all the tricks — how to create plenty of noise around their statements while delivering stern, competent or aggressive speeches and generously showering the public with a mega-watt smile. They know how to proclaim themselves victors and how to change the subject of the conversation while flipping through family albums in prime TV time.

The first act of the big political spectacle is over. The first presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama ended without any sharp, dramatic conflicts. The pale, somewhat wan look of the current president was the only surprise to the public.

A battle of image and trust was at the center of the political stage on which Romney was clearly the winner. Poor him, he had to diligently practice debating for such a long time during the primaries that the public may wonder how he manages to keep his voice strong. After tax filing troubles, wrong numbers mentioned in his statements and all kinds of gaffes, Romney’s stage self-confidence didn’t look obnoxious. Unlike his opponent, Obama, who looked like he would rather enjoy a date with his wife for their 20th marriage anniversary than be present at the debate.

Obama looked nervous and lacked orator fluency — not a role in which the public is used to seeing him. Because of Obama’s status quo supporting position, for the first time in 20 years the Democrats had to convince voters that formally they may have lost, but in essence they have won. Lately, the Democrats have had a lot of fun with Mitt Romney’s economic agenda, often presented with numerous inaccuracies and mistakes, including the infamous 47 percent statement. All these blunders, though, were not allowed on stage during the presidential debate, which showed us a dexterous Republican candidate playing with the numbers and repeatedly mentioning the word “plan” — apparently to make voters believe he has one.

Both Obama’s opponents and Obama’s supporters know that the president’s disciplined campaign is based on polls and research. In this respect, his disengaged attitude could be part of a particular political strategy that wants to avoid any obvious political spin. The debate — primarily focused on the economy — remained monotonous, without emotional outbursts.

Just a couple of days before the debate, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, criticized Washington, not for the first time, for not addressing its two biggest financial problems — the debt ceiling and the so called “fiscal cliff,” as she refers to the $600 billion in spending cuts and tax increases which will come into force on January 1, 2013 if no action is taken.

The burden of the debt requires people to tighten their belts. While Romney and Obama are bickering over the details of the progressive income tax of the most capitalist country in the world, the question of the American financial institutions’ responsibility is put in second place — all the privileged companies who benefited from the taxpayers’ millions given as an economic stimulus; the giants who are piling up surpluses; the giants who would rather over-invest their capital than create new jobs.

Among the financial quagmire, a colossal deficit problem, the legacy left by President Bush, could not be ignored. During Bush’s two mandates (from 2001 to 2009) the U.S. Department of the Treasury estimates that the debt grew from $5.8 trillion to $11.9 trillion. During Obama’s presidency though, the U.S. has continued its fall towards a bottomless debt abyss. Since January 2009 the debt has risen from $10.6 trillion to $16 trillion.

Still, the biggest problem for both candidates remains the trust deficit. Both Romney and Obama would need more than three debates to make voters believe in their intentions and dreams. The second act opens October 11.