The First Clinton-Trump Debate, September 26, 2016: A Study in Personalities

The first Clinton-Trump debate was pretty much what we all expected. Clinton was prepared and, for the most part, stuck to the issues.  The issues, however, were not the point. The point was, which of these two people would be the best president?

Clinton presented an image of a cool, prepared policy wonk. The right wing, however, cares little about policy wonks. Instead, the right wing has a vision. The right wing has long contended that the United States is falling apart, that the world is dangerous, that a strong, authoritarian leader will keep us safe. Trump projected that image: he was loud, angry, and forceful.

Who won? From a debating standpoint, the event was a hands-down Clinton win. Trump was not in the running on the issues. His comments about Obama's birth records and his own taxes were nearly incomprehensible. He routinely got his facts wrong. Clinton got some facts wrong, too, but not on the level that Trump did. Trump rambled aimlessly. He ignored hard questions. He did, however, touch the conservative movement's hot-button issues: he said that the country was weak, that other countries were beating us, that crime was terrible, and that a strong arm was needed. Many conservatives share these concerns, and may have been happy to hear Trump express them.

What about appearances? Clinton looked relaxed and smiled a lot, although her smile often looked forced. Trump grimaced, snorted, and made faces. Voters who want a tough guy in charge probably liked Trump's approach. People who want a calm, sensible person to control our nuclear arsenal probably did not.

How will the debate affect the election? Time will tell. Immediate pundit responses or poll results have, historically, not been accurate. If the debate had an effect at all, it might not be obvious right away.

Debate Watch Tonight!

All over the country, people will be hosting Debate Watch events, recommended by the Commission on Presidential Debates. These might include small friendship groups, families, or classes.

At USC Aiken, I'll be hosting a debate watch for USC Aiken students tonight, September 26, 2016, in B&E 140 at 9:00. We will watch the debate together, and then turn off the TV and have a 30-minute discussion. We can talk about the debaters, the issues, the moderator, the format, or anything else. 

For live tweeting, use the hashtag #USCADebateWatch.

The official hashtag is #Debates2016.

Do Presidential Debates Matter? Maybe Yes, Maybe No . . .

Larry J. Sabato says that debates have, historically, had little effect on presidential elections. Going by poll data, very few people change their minds after watching a presidential debate. There have been some exceptions. In 1976, Gerald Ford denied, in the midst of the Cold War, that there was any Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Every school child knew better. Worse, he doubled down on his ridiculous claim and gave details about it. He lost the election. For the most part, however, people usually vote on straight party loyalty, although ethnicity and income level also help to predict people's voting. This has all been known ever since the 1948 Elmira voting study.

The 1856 Lincoln-Douglas debates helped to make Lincoln famous. Since then, however, debates' impact has been much discussed but little proven.

Debates are, of course, about issues, and issues have, rather strangely, little effect on how people vote. Republicans who thought it was just fine for Reagan and the Bushes to run up huge budget deficits thought it was awful when Obama did it. Democrats now mostly favor same-sex marriage. In general, people tend to shift their opinions to match their candidates, not to pick candidates because of the issues. So, learning that an issue position is right or wrong does not necessarily change how people will vote.

The debates are still useful. First, people who have not followed the campaign closely may watch the debates, and will learn more about the candidates' views. Second, the debates give voters a change to size up a candidate's personality and character. Since, sadly, most Americans know very little about political issues, the debates give them a chance to learn something.

Still, tomorrow's debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump might be more important than usual. First, many people think that Clinton is dishonest and ruthless; if she turns in a calm, issue-oriented debate performance, some negative feelings about her might calm down a bit. Second, since pundits have labeled Trump as volatile and unreliable, potential supporters may want to size up his presidential mettle. The voters can judge whether the candidates show elementary courtesy.

Much also depends on the moderator: will the moderator enforce the rules strictly (like Candy Crowley), or loosely (like Jim Lehrer)? Will the moderator fact-check the candidates (an important but very, very tricky undertaking)? Will the moderator ask good questions? We'll see.

Tomorrow's debate format, which resembles that of earlier debates, is very weak. Candidates are to give two-minute answers, and two-minute answers do not give candidates enough time to explain and prove their points. Sigh.

Why Speeches on 9/11?

Speeches help us remember the past. We don't want to forget those who have died. We want to reaffirm what we believe in. Speeches to commemorate 9/11 are not just ceremonies; they help us carry on for the victims, continue our resolve against evil, and assure the nation that there is still much good in the world.

Barack Obama Quotes the Bible

This was not the first time that President Barack Obama quoted the Bible, but the context made it interesting.

Obama began today's speech on the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by quoting "Good morning. Scripture tells us, “Let not steadfast love and faithfulness forsake you . . . write them on the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 3:3, ESV).  

President Obama at the 9/11 15th Anniversary; whitehouse.gov

Bible quotations usually work only when the audience shares the same religion, which would not be the case at a public event. In this case, however, Obama chose a quotation that expressed an uncontroversial thought, and a religious focus makes sense at a memorial service. Sometimes it works to break the rules. The quotation also started Obama on his theme, which was to praise the nation's unity. All things considered, a stylish start to the speech. 

See my earlier post for more thoughts about speech introductions. 

 

Against Roasts: Never Give Them, Never Attend Them, The Case of Ann Coulter

Conservative advocate Ann Coulter reportedly "hated every minute" of a recent roast on Comedy Central. I don't blame her. The speakers were supposedly roasting actor Rob Lowe, which was bad enough, but Coulter became a major target. Speakers said things about her that could, it seems, not be printed in a family newspaper.

For those people fortunate enough never to have attended a roast, roasts are public speaking events in which the speakers aim nasty jokes at some prominent person. Some folks think that it is an honor to be roasted. In a twisted sense, it probably is. You will only be roasted when you are famous enough, or important enough, that other people want not only to take you down, but to take you down hard. Inevitably, however, a roast will generate hurt feelings that could last for years. Count on this.

I advise my students to avoid roasts like a plague-ridden flea nest. Receiving gratuitous insults brings no one any joy, while handing out gratuitous insults creates lasting resentments. Relationships can be destroyed. Roast participants pay a high price for a few cheap laughs. In real life, roasts are not funny.

My advice to aspiring public speakers: never give a roast, never speak at a roast, never be roasted. Never. No matter what. As Ann Coulter learned the other day, never even attend a roast. If there is a roast at your workplace, you might be wise to have an unbreakable prior engagement that night. For example, maybe you can convince your nephew to get married out of state that night, so you can't attend the roast. People who avoid roasts live happier lives.

Philosophy and Communication

A while back, I got a note from Dr. Elizabeth Radcliffe, chair of the Department of Philosophy at my alma mater, the College of William and Mary. How has philosophy helped my career as a speech professor?

First, a speaker's main job is to spread truth. Although truth often eludes us, careful research and rigorous thinking are the best ways to find it. Philosophy helps out, big-time, because philosophy trains people to think hard, deep, and long.

Second, speakers need to be ethical, and, equally, listeners need to reject unethical speech. Philosophical training in ethics matters a great deal. We cannot always safely rely on our preferences as to what is ethical, as self-interest and intellectual laziness can, in equal amounts, cause us to misunderstand our moral obligations. I always take time for ethical lessons when I teach my classes, and remind my students that the ethical way is not always the easy way.

Philosophy is, by definition, the study of wisdom, and we all need to seek wisdom as hard as we can, even if we might never really find it. In any case, all of my philosophy professors have long since retired or passed away, but I am happy to know that the search for wisdom lives on.

How did I get from philosophy to public speaking? It was actually an easy jump, but I'll save the story for another time.

By the way, Steven Pearlstein has a great article talking about why studying the liberal arts is valuable, and explains that it is a mistake to guide students away from them. Good point.