The First Trump-Biden Debate: Interruptions for a (Non) Cause

Last night, Donald Trump and Joe Biden participated in the most bizarre excuse for a debate in American political history.

The polling website FiveThirtyEight's headline about the debate said, “Trump Interrupts to Point of Chaos in First Debate.” No kidding. Let's be clear: a debate is an organized exchange of ideas following rules. Trump ignored the rules, interrupting Biden while dodging obvious questions for which he should have been prepared. Biden broke the rules a few times himself, mostly when he tried to get in a word edgewise. 

Earlier Post: You Need a Good Debate Format

I was on my high school and college debate teams for six years, and was a debate coach at four universities. Three points about last night’s debate: 

(1) Trump interrupted Biden to prevent Biden from making his points.

(2) Trump interrupted Biden to show that he is forceful.

(3) Trump was appealing to voters who do not care about policy.

In this post, I'll talk about (1), and plan to write about the other two points in days to come.

Why Did Trump Interrupt so Often? 

Here’s a hypothesis: Trump’s policies are basically failures: he has never presented the comprehensive health care overhaul he promised, even though the nation is overrun by a pandemic, while unemployment is sky-high and the economy is collapsing. He hasn't built the wall, and Mexico hasn't paid for it. Let us further suppose that Trump was unprepared, failed to do his homework, and lacked awareness of even the most basic policy issues. Further, Biden was prepared and does understand basic policy issues. 

Now, if Biden got a chance to speak at length, for the full time that the debate rules allowed, without interruptions or distraction, he would have conclusively demonstrated that his policies were superior. Trump would be unable to respond in kind since he has no policy expertise or successes to offer. 

So, during the debate, Trump interrupted, quickly and loudly, to make bizarre, off-the-point comments to draw Biden away from substantive issue discussions. 

Trump's Healthcare Interruptions

Here’s a gloriously awful example from early in the debate. Moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News, who was far more effective four years ago when he moderated one of the Trump-Clinton debates, asked Biden to talk about a public option under the Affordable Care Act. The public option is, of course, a conservative bugbear that leads to constant ranting on Fox News and talk radio. Wallace asked: 

“I am asking the question. That it will, it will end private insurance and create a government takeover of health care.” 

Trying to correct this common misunderstanding, Biden said: 

“It does not. It's only for those people who are so poor they qualify for Medicaid, they can get that free. In most states, except governors who want to deny people are poor, Medicaid. Anyone who qualifies for Medicare -- excuse me, Medicaid -- would automatically be enrolled in the public option. The vast majority of the American people would still not be in that option. Number one –” 

So far, that sounded like a precise, well-rehearsed answer in the making. Of course, Trump couldn’t allow that. Biden would make him look like a fool. So, he interrupted: 

“So you agree with Bernie Sanders, who’s left on the manifesto we call it, that gives you socialized medicine.” 

Now, first, it was not Trump’s turn to speak. Second, Bernie Sanders isn’t running for president. Third, Trump’s interruption stopped Biden before he could explain why his policy was not socialized medicine. Trump’s diversion worked just fine, for the next thing Biden said was: 

“Look. The fact of the matter is, I beat Bernie Sanders--”

Maybe Biden was trying to explain that his policy and Sanders policy differed. He never got the chance, for Trump broke in again: 

“You got very lucky.” 

That, of course, had nothing to do with healthcare. Unfortunately, Biden took the bait: 

“I got very lucky, I’m going to get very lucky tonight as well. And tonight I'm going to -- here's the deal, here’s the deal. The fact is that everything he’s saying so far it's simply a lie. I'm not here to call out his lies; everybody knows he’s a liar. I want to make sure --  I want to make the President--” 

That wasn’t a bad answer. Biden expressed confidence and criticized Trump for speaking falsely. But did you notice what he didn’t talk about? He didn’t talk any more about healthcare or the public option. I’ve written before the Trump is a master of misdirection, just like a stage magician. Yes, Trump was rude, and irrational, and incoherent. But he put a dead stop to Biden’s answer, tricking him into wasting his time. 

Earlier Post: Trump, the "China Virus," and the Art of Misdirection

It got worse. Trump next said: 

“You just lost the left. You just lost the left. You agreed with Bernie Sanders on a plan.” 

That didn’t make much sense, but Trump got Biden to stop talking about healthcare and diverted him to talking about political strategy. Biden then scored the zinger of the night: 

“Folks, do we have any idea what this clown is doing?” 

Okay, sure, fight fire with fire. Trump had it coming. But, going back to Wallace’s question, this was Biden’s chance to talk about healthcare policy. Instead, he let Trump continue to bait him. Yes, Biden got the better of the exchange. No question about it. All the same, his well-rehearsed discussion of the healthcare public option had screeched to a smoking halt. 

Realizing that he’d been diverted, Biden turned back to the topic: 

“Let me tell you what. He is not for any help for people needing health care because he in fact already cost 10 million people their health care that they had from their employers, because of his recession, number one. Number two, there are 20 million people getting health care through Obamacare now he wants to take it away. He won't ever look in your eye and say that's what he wants to do. Take it away.” 

Okay, that was back on track. Good. Biden stated some numbers and contrasted his policy with Trump’s. Not for long, however. Trump interrupted again, blurting out this incoherent nonsense: 

“No, I want to give them better health care at a much, much lower price because he has no, he doesn't know how to read fixed he has never already played it to an extent he has now.”

I’m not sure that’s even English. Of course, we all know that neither Trump nor any of the other Republicans have ever actually proposed an Obamacare alternative. Get better healthcare at a much lower price? Trump has been promising that for years, without ever giving the actual plan to make it happen. That’s not the point. The point is that, once again, Trump stopped Biden from giving his policy. By this point, moderator Chris Wallace, who was just as bamboozled as Biden, actually turned the discussion over to Trump. With that ill-considered transition, Wallace bypassed what was supposed to be Biden’s opportunity to speak: 

“I know you’ll realize you’re both speaking at the same time. Let the President’ s -- go ahead sir.” 

A moment later, Wallace did try to give the exasperated Biden a chance to explain his policy, but by that point he had lost his train of thought – as any other debater would have by this point. No, Trump never gave a healthcare policy. No, he never said anything remotely coherent or intelligent about Biden’s policy. 

By interrupting, bullying, and ranting, Trump prevented Biden from giving the two-minute explanation of his healthcare plan that the rules entitled him to present. 

Anyway, that’s just one example. This kind of thing went on throughout the debate. 

So, back to my hypothesis. Biden was well-prepared with policy proposals. He had done his homework. Trump, in contrast, had no idea what he was talking about. Instead of talking about policy, which was beyond his ability, Trump spewed out conspiracy theories and nonsense that he must have picked up from conservative cable news and talk radio shows. What Trump did, with supreme success, was to short-circuit the debate to stop Biden from making himself look good. Deep inside, I think that Trump knew that Biden was better prepared and felt that his only chance was to direct attention away from Biden’s policy. The interruptions and crosstalk served that purpose brilliantly. 

So, yes, Trump looked and sounded very bad during this debate. No, he did not act like a grown-up. Yes, he was incoherent. No, he didn’t say a single thing about how he would make healthcare better. 

What he accomplished was to stop Biden from explaining how he would make healthcare better. So, the debate was a disaster for Trump, but it was, to some extent, also a disaster for Biden. Trump was not trying to win the debate. He was trying to make Biden lose. 

Earlier Post: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Suffered from Talking Points Disease in the Third 2016 Presidential Debate

Suggestions from a Former Debate Coach

How to prevent this? Every high school and college debate coach has judged dozens if not hundreds of academic debates with unruly debaters. Any experienced debate coach could have handled this better than Wallace. Here are some suggestions: 

(1) When a speaker’s time is up, the moderator should stand up, and, if necessary, walk up to the podium and stand directly in front of the speaker until the ranting stops. Obnoxious, but effective. The moderator is not trying to win a popularity contest.

(2) Any time a speaker interrupts, even just one word, the opponent should get an extra minute added to the speaking time. This should be done electronically, preferably with a flashing interruption light.

(3) The speaking time should be put in a huge, bright display directly behind the speakers so the television audience can see whose turn it is and how much time is left.

(4) If all else fails, mute the microphone - right away. 

Conclusion

Yes, unscrupulous people will break the rules. We need rules because people do not always behave themselves. And, although Biden could have confronted Trump more effectively, it’s not his job. It’s the moderator’s obligation to control the debate. What a shame that Wallace, with all his experience, didn't know how to do that. 

Donald Trump and the Art of Saying Ridiculous Things

Donald Trump, WH portrait

Donald Trump is on record as saying that he intended to play down the coronavirus epidemic, except now he is on the record saying that he didn’t play it down. Will this obvious contradiction affect his public support? Of course not. He didn’t just play down the coronavirus; he played down the contradiction. His technique was to commit the well-known fallacy of equivocation. This is the fallacy of using words that mean different things in different contexts.

Yes, Trump Said He Played the Virus Down…

 

First, here’s what he told reporter Bob Woodward a few months ago, in a sound recording:

 

“I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.”

 

That’s clear as a bell, isn’t it?  So we thought….

 

Unfortunately, people need accurate information during an international crisis, and Trump admitted – on the record – that he was speaking falsely.

 

 

… But Now He Says He Played the Virus Up

 

But now let’s look at what he said in yesterday’s ABC Town Hall in Pennsylvania, where he faced questions from undecided voters. I’ll quote his entire exchange with voter Joni Powell: 

 

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s get one final question on COVID.

We’ve got Joni Powell right here. She’s from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. And you actually haven’t voted before.

TRUMP: How are you?

POWELL: Hello, hi. My question is, if you believe it’s the president’s responsibility to protect America, why would you downplay a pandemic that is known to disproportionately harm low-income families and minority communities?

TRUMP: Yeah. Well, I didn’t downplay it. I actually -- in many ways I up-played it in terms of action. My action was very strong.

POWELL: Did you not admit to it yourself?

TRUMP: Yes, because what I did was, with China – I put a ban on with Europe, I put a ban on. And we would have lost thousands of more people, had I not put the ban on.

So that was called action, not with the mouth, but an actual fact. We did a very, very good job when we put that ban on. Whether you call it talent or luck, it was very important. So we saved a lot of lives when we did that.

 

And, a bit later, responding to a question by moderator George Stephanopoulos, Trump said:

 

“I'm not looking to be dishonest. I don't want people to panic. And we are going to be OK. We're going to be OK, and it is going away. And it's probably going to go away now a lot faster because of the vaccines.”

That exchange gave the press great mirth. He said he played the virus down, but now he says he played it up. Both statements can’t be true, can they? 

But Trump actually played a clever magic trick. A stage magician can convince you that the rabbit is inside the hat when it’s really under the table. A magician can pull an ordinary object from a place in which it could not possibly be. A seemingly sadistic magician can apparently saw a young woman in half without harming her at all.

In this case, Trump played a trick with words.

Trump's Word Games

Coronavirus, CDC

First move: In his interview with Bob Woodward, Trump was talking about playing the virus down rhetorically. He said his goal was to avoid panic by not saying anything that would spook people. Telling people that there was a bad virus would spook them, maybe hurting the stock market or causing disruptive public behavior. By playing it down, Trump gave people hope that the whole thing would go away shortly. Unfortunately, the virus did not go away; it has gotten much worse and there are now almost 200,000 confirmed coronavirus deaths in the United States alone. 

Here are some of the things he said to play it down:

February 28, 2020:

“Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus.… This is their new hoax.”

February 28, 2020:

“It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”

 March 4, 2020: 

“Now, this is just my hunch, but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people have this and it is very mild.” 

Second move: Responding to Powell’s question, Trump did not talk about what he said.  He talked about what he did, not what he told people. The Trump administration has obviously failed to provide adequate personal protective equipment for medical professionals, much less the public. Trump  implemented a national testing policy slowly, and repeatedly pushed schools and businesses to reopen when it was obviously unsafe. He did one useful thing of which he was very proud. That is, he instituted a partial ban against travel from China. Since the virus originated in China, it’s reasonable to think that the partial ban slowed the virus’ spread into the United States for a time. He emphasized and perhaps overstated that one positive point. 

Third move: Finally, Trump pretended that his position had not changed at all. In yesterday’s Town Hall, Trump actually stuck to his rhetorical point: he reiterated that “I don’t want people to panic.” That is, he repeated and reinforced the original point that he made to Bob Woodward. Rhetorically speaking, he was still saying a version of the same thing.

At the same time, Trump can no longer reasonably repeat his absurd denials about the virus.  During the Town Hall, he reinforced that “I don’t want people to panic” while not repeating the absurd claims, which only a fool would believe today, that the virus was “their new hoax” or that it would go away “like a miracle.” Nevertheless, he still insisted that the virus would go away, but he shifted a little bit about what that meant: “it is going away” now meant that it would go away when the vaccine became available. That is not what he said the first time. 

Trump could, however, claim that he was playing the virus up, not down, because of his travel ban. If he had done something else positive to slow down the virus, I’m sure he would have said it. Alas…

Worse, Trump told people what the fallacy was even as he committed it: “So that was called action, not with the mouth, but an actual fact.” It’s as if a robber says, “I’m going to rob you,” and thinks it’s okay because he told the victim what he was doing. This, however, was not a robbery; Trump's rhetorical move was trickier than a Las Vegas magic act.

Earlier Post: Trump Commits Straw Person Fallacies 

How Not to Be Fooled

If you’re watching a magic show, and the magician tells you to look at her hands, you need to look somewhere else because the hands are misdirecting you. If you’re watching a magic act, and you hear a loud noise, and you want to understand the trick, look anywhere except at the noise. The noise is a distraction. 

Similarly, when figuring out Donald Trump, do not just listen to what he says. Listen to what he doesn’t say. In the Town Hall, Trump didn’t deny that he told Bob Woodward that he wanted to “play it down.” Nor did he deny that he had misinformed the public. He obviously had; it was on tape. 

Once you notice what Trump did not say, your next step is to look for word games. In his Bob Woodward interview, “play it down” referred to his efforts to say things to keep the public from worrying. In yesterday’s Town Hall, “play it down” referred to his policy actions, not his words.

Words are tricky, for an argument to be logical, we must use words with the same meaning from the beginning of the argument to the end. In this case, Trump played word games. 

Yes, Trump contradicted himself completely. He had talked himself into an inconsistent position. He was desperate for a way to wiggle out of it. No one who listened carefully would be fooled. However, his trick was not as simple as just contradicting himself, and his word games gave his supporters an excuse to justify his actions. This, by the way, is why everyone needs to study critical thinking and learn the basic principles of logic. Trump played the virus down in one way, while playing it up in another way, and then pretended that they were the same things. His technique was illogical and disreputable, but cunning.

 

Technical note: The trick that Trump played represents what philosophers call the fallacy of equivocation.  Sometimes equivocation is funny. Do you remember when the Queen refused to give Alice any jam in Through the Looking Glass?  “It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know.” To Alice, “every other day” meant alternate days, but “any other day” means that it is a different day, not an alternate day. Confused, poor Alice decided that the whole thing was “complicated.” When tricky people commit fallacies, they want to make simple things seem more complicated than they really are. Fallacies persuade people because they confuse people. When Trump commits equivocation in public policy, however, lives are at stake. It is not funny at all. People are dying. 

We can short-circuit tricksters if we define our terms at the start of a discussion. Dr. Alan Fuchs, one of my favorite William and Mary professors, said that you should begin every discourse by defining your terms. Oh, was he ever right! 

I've occasionally published technical articles about fallacies. If you're interested, click on "William D. Harpine's Publications" above and browse around. 

Lady Gaga Spoke and Sang for National Unity in 2017

Hurricane Harvey Flooding, Texas

Let’s go back to look at an excellent musical speech by Lady Gaga. The best speeches remind us to live by our ideals. We need to remember those ideals today. 

On October 21, 2017, Lady Gaga (Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta) performed at the Hurricane Relief Concert at Texas A&M University. All five former presidents attended, while President Donald Trump gave a video message. Lady Gaga used two impressive public speaking techniques: she called the audience to action by appealing to common values, and she accompanied herself with music.

Speaking for hurricane relief, a cause to which she gave a one-million dollar donation, Lady Gaga appealed to the all-American values of equality, national unity, and group effort. She expressed these values, ideals that we seem already to have forgotten, clearly and precisely:

“The most special thing of all is how pain is such an equalizer. And in a time of catastrophe we all put our differences aside and we come together, because we need each other or we can’t survive.”

Truer words were never spoken. All of us, rich and poor alike, suffer pain, fear, and anxiety. Storms can strike anyone; the Bible says that it rains on the just and unjust alike. However, a modern pundit commented that, “The sun shines on the rich and the poor alike. But when it comes to rain, the rich have better umbrellas.”

Lady Gaga’s thesis, however, called for us all to join together to meet the catastrophe: “We need each other or we can’t survive.”

She also pointed out that mental health during a catastrophe was as important as physical health:

“The One America appeal is one of a kind. This is a historical moment that we are truly one nation [she paused dramatically] under God. But what I’m here to remind you of is that, as the cofounder of the Born This Way Foundation, we must also recover mentally as well as physically.”

Note how she again emphasized unity: “truly one nation,” “one nation under God,” “One America.”


Earlier Post: Prince Harry Talked about Values at the Invictus Games


Second, Lady Gaga worked music into her presentation. As she said her remarks slowly, softly and clearly, with an occasional smile on her face, in a remarkably rich speaking voice, she accompanied herself by playing quietly on a gleaming white concert grand piano that was color-coordinated with her dress. She paused often, letting her words sink in, using the piano music to fill in the silences. Music and speech both communicate with sound, and singing during a speech has a long tradition.


Earlier Post: Stevie Wonder’s Hurricane Harvey Speech: Music and Speech Together


Lady Gaga finished by singing several of her songs that she felt expressed appropriate values. An announcer then thanked her for the performance and encouraged viewers to give further donations.

We often hear music in the background during political advertisements and polemical political TV shows. President Donald Trump, for example, controversially used John Fogerty’s song “Fortunate Son” during recent campaign appearances. (Fogerty’s song criticizes people like President Trump and Fogerty has asked Trump to stop using it.) Professional persuaders who use television and the Internet know that music helps them to send their message. If canned music on television adds to the message, live music carries even more power. Lady Gaga created her own musical accompaniment by playing and singing during her presentation. Her quite lovely piano music created a mood while she spoke, and, no doubt, helped to place the audience in a favorable frame of mind.

A nation needs to work together if it is to flourish. Our nation cannot long endure in its current divided condition, while persons of common goals ridicule one another for political gain.

Epideictic, or ceremonial, speech exists to remind us of what we share in common. Epideictic speech does, in fact, often lead to policy, just as Lady Gaga used a presentation to encourage donations to a worthy cause. Music exists to express how we feel. Speech and music belong together.

P.S.: A while back, I published an article called “‘We Want Yer, McKinley’: Epideictic Rhetoric in Songs from the 1896 Presidential Campaign.” Click on "William D. Harpine's Publications" above and scroll halfway down to find the link. 

Image: Hurricane Harvey flooding at Aransas Pass, Texas, not far from my own home, NOAA

President George W. Bush’s “9/11 Address to the Nation:” An Appeal for Unity

Nineteen years ago today, terrorists hijacked four American airplanes and killed thousands of people. I was working in my office in Akron, Ohio, watching on my computer as the World Trade Center towers fell, and my family underwent quite a bit of confusion (only one of us owned a cell phone in those primitive days) before we got organized and safely home. No, it is not an easy day to forget. 

On the evening of September 11, 2001, several hours after the terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush appealed for national and international unity in a simple speech from the Oval Office. Somehow, his ordinary, predictable speech, looks much different when examined 19 years later. For Bush did not use the speech to attack his political rivals, vent personal grievances, or stoke ethnic prejudices. Instead, he pledged the nation to unite in common values. 

In his second sentence, Bush reminded the nation that the terrorists’ victims were ordinary people going about ordinary business: 

“The victims were in airplanes or in their offices: secretaries, business men and women, military and federal workers, moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.” 

Warning that the terrorists intended to drive the United States into disunity, Bush said that “These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation to chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong.” 

Bush then reminded the American people, rather idealistically, of our founding values: 

“These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.” 

Look at the unifying, value-laden words he used: “brightest beacon,” “freedom and opportunity,” and a shining light. He didn’t just talk about freedom and opportunity for our own people – no America First rhetoric – but “freedom and opportunity in the world.” Unity. Bush then said that the correct response to evil was to turn to goodness. He presented a picture of Americans working together regardless of differences to help one another. 

Earlier Post: Barack Obama’s Farewell Speech: Can’t We Listen to One Another?

Bush called us to “the best of America:”

“Today, our nation saw evil - the very worst of human nature - and we responded with the best of America. With the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.” 

After promising a massive military and diplomatic response to the terrorists, Bush thanked the politicians, allies and world leaders who united to fight terrorism: 

“I appreciate so very much the members of Congress who have joined me in strongly condemning these attacks. And on behalf of the American people, I thank the many world leaders who have called to offer their condolences and assistance. America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism.”

 Again, Bush spoke in language of identification and unity: “joined,” “many world leaders,” “friends and allies join with all.” Bush ended by pleading for unity and justice: 

“This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace.”

 Again, “all Americans,” and “every walk of life unite.” He promised that the United States would defeat this enemy and would never forget the attacks, “yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.”  

Of course, no one ever fully lives up to their ideals, but that isn’t the point. The point is that Bush took a remarkably positive outlook. He did not attack the Democratic Party. He said nothing against Muslims, even though, by that point, his advisers had identified the terrorists and told him about Al Qaeda’s involvement. Instead, Bush praised the nation for coming together. He promised that the nation and the world would continue to unite against evil, again, “to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.” 

I never supported President George W. Bush’s policies.  Richard A. Clark, one of the United States’ leading terrorism experts, pointed out in his important book, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, that Bush had ignored repeated warnings that Al Qaeda posed a major threat. After 9/11, as Bob Woodward showed in his book Plan of Attack, Bush worried more about Iraq than Al Qaeda. Nor can I agree with Bush’s haphazard, scattershot response to Middle Eastern problems, a response that led to violence and chaos that continues to kill American military personnel even today. Bush quickly squandered the international goodwill that his 9/11 speech produced so warmly. Still, let’s note that his 9/11 speech made a serious effort to pull people together. That, as far as it goes, is commendable.   

Public speeches can unite or divide us. Today, in 2020, our nation’s biggest enemy is an act of nature, a viral pandemic whose harvest of death is killing far more people than who died on 9/11. Yet, our government and population alike stubbornly refuse to unite against the common enemy. Although 9/11 led to many conspiracy theories, the bizarre belief that 9/11 was a planned demolition never gained political traction. No one went so far as to claim that the attacks were a hoax. So, what has gone wrong with us today? 

Earlier Post: Speeches About Conspiracies: How Can We Tell if a Conspiracy is Real? 

Theoretical notes: 

• In this case, President George W. Bush rose to the occasion, at least temporarily. He responded to what communication professor Lloyd Bitzer calls an exigence. That is, he responded to an occasion that called for speech. The public needed to know what the President had to say, and Bush came through. Last year, I wrote about a speech in which Pope Francis, who I admire in many ways, failed to respond to the exigence of church child abuse. 
• Also, my book about the 1896 presidential campaign, From the Front Porch to the Front Page, points out how effectively President William McKinley worked to identify with and unite the nation. Click on "William D. Harpine's Publications" above for more information about the book.

PS: Once again, thanks to Martin J. Medhurst and the good people at AmericanRhetoric.com for preparing a verbatim transcript of Bush’s speech as delivered. It’s not as easy as it looks.

Image: Official Dept. of Defense Photo

In a Press Briefing, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Seeks Common Ground in the Fight against the Coronavirus

World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus spoke to the press once again, at a press conference in Geneva on August 31, 2020. Making a more direct statement than a few days ago, Ghebreyesus talked about the conflict between people who think that it is more important to contain the novel coronavirus and those who instead wish to open up their nation’s economy. Ghebreyesus’ simple thesis was that we need to do both. In a remarkably persuasive presentation, he expressed sympathy for people who want to open up the economy, saying that he shared their goals, but he explained that economies can only recover if the pandemic is controlled. Like all first-rate persuasive speakers, he sought common ground with his critics.

Earlier Post: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ Positive Approach to Fighting the Coronavirus

First, he expressed sympathy for the people who criticize public health measures. “Eight months into the pandemic,” he explained, “we understand that people are tired and yearn to get on with their lives. We understand that countries want to get their societies and economies going again.” He assured the press that “that’s what WHO wants too.” He acknowledged that restrictions “have taken a heavy toll on livelihoods, economies and mental health.” He supported “efforts to re-open economies and societies” and “to see children returning to school and people returning to the workplace.”

Of course, there’s always a catch: Ghebreyesus warned that “we want to see it done safely.” He warned that “no country can just pretend the pandemic is over.”

Obviously aware that many people, including in the United States, have downplayed the novel coronavirus’ severity, he pointed out that “The reality is that this coronavirus spreads easily, it can be fatal to people of all ages, and most people remain susceptible.”

Then came his punch line, where he gave a solution that combined the economic and public health goals: “The more control countries have over the virus, the more they can open up.”


“The more control countries have over the virus, the more they can open up.”

Second, Ghebreyesus offered a four-part solution:

(a) He said that nations must “prevent amplifying events.” He explained that the coronavirus “spreads very efficiently among clusters of people.” He noted the terrible outbreaks that occurred when people gathered at sporting events, bars, and religious assemblies. Such events, he warned, might need to be temporarily delayed.

(b) He also warned that especially vulnerable people such as the elderly, people with pre-existing risk factors, and “essential workers” need special protection.

(c) Third, he advised that every individual person must help, by staying a few feet apart from one another, washing hands, wearing a mask, and practicing “respiratory etiquette.” I have never heard such a nice way to ask people not to cough into one another’s faces.

(d) Finally, he discussed the importance of government action “to find, isolate, test and care for cases, and trace and quarantine contacts.”

In the United States, conservatives often protest against wholesale closings. Since we hear so much opposition to basic public health measures, Ghebreyesus wisely remarked that nations can avoid wholesale closings “if countries take temporary and geographically-targeted interventions.”

Ghebreyesus then cited Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, who had said that worldwide cooperation was the only way to overcome the international pandemic.

During times of stress, like a pandemic, people often want to hide from the rest of the world. In contrast, Director-General of the World Health Organization emphasized how important it is for all of us to cooperate to achieve goals. Those goals, he wanted us to see, are often perceived to be incompatible when they are, in fact, the same.

I could never have asked for one of my public speaking students to give a better-organized persuasive speech. Ghebreyesus identified and sympathized with the WHO’s critics, stated the problem concisely and sharply, and then offered solutions that would achieve everyone’s goals.

Ghebreyesus’ speech, like the briefing he gave a few days ago, was persuasive, thoughtful, and conciliatory. He gave well-informed opinions that deserve all our attention. Once again, however, the United States’ press gave him remarkably little publicity. Instead, we are hearing reports in which the President of the United States, of all people, discusses shadow people, soup bag-throwing, and mysterious black-suited people on airplanes. The press exalts in this nonsense even as it ignores valuable information like what the World Health Organizations provides.

It is time for the world to listen to people who know what they are talking about. I hope people listen Ghebreyesus’ speech. I hope we pay attention this time.



Theoretical note: a theory of communication called agenda-setting says that the press’ number one effect is not to tell us what to think, but what to think about. We in the United States are mostly thinking, favorably or unfavorably, about President Donald’s bizarre statements and odd behavior. Conservatives are also thinking about political vandalism presumably committed by left-wing extremists. That’s because these are the things that the press reports the most. But we are not thinking about basic public health measures, about which the press tells us little. Yet which is more important right now?

Image: CDC Facebook page