Hecklers Have Been Doing an Awful Job of Heckling: Ibraheem S. Samirah, Trump Protestors, and the Hapless Joe Wilson. If You Want to Heckle, Do It Right!

Let’s talk about heckling: the fine art of cutting a speaker down to size with a couple well-chosen words. 

We have heard some awful heckling. American audiences that have pride need to step up their game.  Or, if they can't learn to heckle right, maybe they should stop trying. Whichever.

Bad Heckling Example #1: Virginia General Assembly Delegate Ibraheem S. Samirah interrupted President Donald Trump’s recent speech in Jamestown, Virginia (one of my favorite places in the whole world, ever) by standing up smirking while holding a folding sign that read: “Go Back to Your Corrupted Home – Deport Hate – Unite My Family.” He wore a nice suit with a silly bow tie. Officers escorted him away, still smirking. Republicans and members of the crowd promptly cheered, “Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.”  Republican leaders cursed about him on Twitter and said that his behavior was “inconsistent with common decency.” Hmm, well, the pancake accuses the crepe of being flat, or whatever metaphor you like.

Now, Trump haters on social media thought that Samirah was great, and Trump lovers cursed at him. I don’t think we added much to public dialogue either way. The Republican responses were, if anything, worse than the original heckling.

Boring. Dull. Unimaginative. Crude. Not funny. And no one got cut down to size.

Bad Heckling Example #2:

Protesters interrupted Trump’s rally in Cincinnati last night. They shouted incomprehensible pro-immigrant slogans and waved signs saying things like “Immigrants Built America.” Well, I agree that immigrants built America, but that doesn’t mean that the protestors were competent hecklers. Drowning them out, Trump supporters shouted, “USA! USA! USA!” Punches were thrown in and outside the arena. I guess people enjoyed getting in one another’s faces. But both sides were unpolished and predictable. 

It didn't even look like fun. If you want to heckle, have a good time doing it. And although some people were humiliated, no one was cut down to size. Indeed, Trump beamed during the incident, so the protestors' purpose went down to defeat. Hecklers are supposed to make the speaker look worse, not better.

Bad Heckling Example #3

For the worst, crudest, stupidest, most embarrassing, most pathetic, and sadly, most effective example of heckling in recent American history, we need to remember Congressional Joe Wilson of South Carolina. President Barack Obama was speaking to Congress in 2009 about his proposed health care plan. Obama correctly mentioned that illegal immigrants would not be allowed to gain benefits. Full of paranoid conspiracy theories and bereft of knowledge, Wilson shouted “You Lie!” He later apologized. His heckle led to a surge in campaign contributions from all over the country. Apparently being wrong and stupid but rude was exactly what his supporters wanted. Or, at least, his many supporters thought it was OK for him to be wrong if he was also disgusting.

Even after the “You Lie” incident, there were people who failed to realize that Wilson was a fool. Years later, however, comedian Sacha Baron Cohen removed all doubt. He tricked* Wilson into advocating arming kindergarten students (i.e., specially trained toddlers called “kinderguardians”) with firearms so they could protect their classmates. 

However, note I that I lived happily in South Carolina for many years, and I assure the reader that, mindless though he may be, Wilson is not even close to being the dumbest member of Congress from that lovely state.

So—heckling can be an art. This blog post has told three stories of terrible heckling.

The moral is: if you want to heckle somebody, try to be witty, brief, and sharp. Otherwise, you’ll just sound stupid. You’ll never sound as stupid as Joe Wilson—that is too high a bar—but you’ll sound stupid enough.

Believe it or not, I had heckling lessons in college. Yes, you read that right. Heckling lessons. From two different professors at two different schools. No, the heckling lessons were not a pile of liberal propaganda. And, no, they were not a waste of time. I’ll write more about that when I feel like it. Stay tuned!

* Yes, Wilson got tricked by a master trickster. Still, how can a public official have such poor judgment? Good grief.  

Let the Pushiest Candidate Win the Debate? Is That Any Way to Pick a President?

The second half of the second Democratic primary debate – what were the organizers trying to do?

The Democratic debates so far give a big advantage to the candidates who are loudest, interrupt most often, or cause the most controversy. Is that really what Democrats want? If you want a loud, boorish, obnoxious president, well, we have one today. If you want nasty, just vote for Trump. Problem solved. None of the Democratic candidates will ever yell at or insult people as well as Donald Trump. Trump has that part locked up. So why does the debate format reward pushy behavior?

If one debater speaks more than another, that debater will probably win – not by being the best, but by having the most ideas heard. I explained a few weeks ago that a good debate format gives equal time to all the debaters. Indeed, Debate textbooks devote entire sections to debate formats. The format makes a difference. If you give extra time to one debater, you’re giving that debater an extra advantage. Every high school and college debate coach in the country knows to enforce strict time limits. The moderators on July 31 promised they would do that, but, of course, as usual, although they tried, they failed.

Moderator Jake Tapper explained the timing rules:

“As moderators, we will attempt to guide the discussion. You will each receive one minute to answer questions, 30 seconds for responses and rebuttals, and 15 additional seconds if a moderator asks for a clarification. The timing lights will remind you of these limits. Please respect them, and please refrain from interrupting other candidates during their allotted time. A candidate infringing on another candidate's time will have his or her time reduced.”

Fair enough except for a few catches: the moderators could ask for clarifications. That gave people extra time just because they failed to answer a question the first time. Debaters also got extra time if somebody criticized them. Since Biden got criticized a lot, he ended up getting extra time. For example, after Joe Biden made some comments, Andrew Yang asked the moderators, “May I, please?” Tapper gave him a chance to make a response. He then talked for some reasonable length about criminal justice. Toward the end of the debate, there were several instances of crosstalk. A debate moderator really shouldn’t let that happen.

Once again, the good people at FiveThirtyEight added up who spoke the most words. Joe Biden spoke 3819 words. Kamala Harris, who is also polling well, came in second with 3186 words. Elizabeth Warren got in 2805 words. Poor Andrew Yang came in last at 1710 words. Maybe that’s why Yang wanted to interrupt! In part, Biden got more speaking time because the other candidates criticized him, and he took advantage of the chance to respond. Every time they criticized Biden, they gave him more floor time, handing him a built-in time advantage! Rather self-defeating. But when one candidate gets almost twice the amount of speaking time as another, we’re talking about a debate format that has fallen apart at the seams. But let’s be frank: the pushiest candidates got more time.

On the one hand, yes, the public wants to hear from the front-runners. On the other hand, no, it’s not fair. And, also, no, you don’t want a pushover in the White House. Still, the candidates who get the most time to speak are going to be declared the winners of the debate. Nobody declared Andrew Yang or Michael Bennet to be the winners. How could they win? They didn’t get much speaking time. With this debate format, being a front-runner gives you more time to speak and makes you the winner. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy – and nothing more.

If I learned anything in more than 40 years of studying the subject, it is that structure and format are keys to good communication. 

P.S.: My beloved wife just reminded  that obnoxious college debaters often won the trophies. I won a few trophies in my day. Please don't draw any conclusions. Peace to all.

The July 31, 2019 Democratic Primary Debate: Once Again, a Terrible Format Wrecked the Debate

Last night’s Democratic presidential primary debate was, as expected, a pathetic excuse for a debate. I’m not a media pundit and I’m not going to speculate as to who won. It’s too early to tell. The only winner that matters is who wins the presidential election in November.  Instead, I’m putting on my debate specialist’s hat to figure out what went wrong.

 The big problems were, for the most part, not the debaters’ fault:

First, the speeches were too short. It is hard to work out a decent argument in 30 seconds or a minute. It can be done, yes, but it’s not easy.

Second, the moderators, as usual, did a terrible job. News reporters want to come up with good news. They are not trained how to produce a good debate.

In this post, I’ll talk about the first problem. My next post (stay tuned) will discuss the second problem.

So, first. To make a complete argument on an important issue probably requires at least four or five minutes. To make a good argument, a debater must state a point, explain it, and give evidence to prove it. The late Robert B. Huber, who was for many years a terrific debate coach at the University of Vermont, explained this beautifully in his now out-of-print textbook. The debaters last night were talking about complex issues like healthcare and immigration. A few seconds are not enough to explain policy and issues on topics like those. The debaters had time to say what their points were but not to explain or prove them.

Kamala Harris, US Senate photo

Example #1: Consider, for example, when Kamala Harris was asked to respond to a point about healthcare policy. Her answer went like this:

“Yeah, let's talk about math. Let's talk about math. Let's talk about the fact that the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies last year alone profited $72 billion, and that is on the backs of American families.

“And under your plan, status quo, you do nothing to hold the insurance companies to task for what they have been doing to American families. In America today, diabetes patients, one in four cannot afford their insulin. In America today...”

And then the moderator, Jake Tapper, told her that her time was up:

“Thank you, Senator.” Boom!

Harris then made a futile effort to try to squeeze in a few more words, whereupon Tapper told her: “Your time is up, Senator.”

Now, Harris tried to make what seemed like a reasonable point and she even presented one fact to support her position, but her time ran out before she could complete her argument. This was, alas, what happens with such a chaotic, overscheduled format.

Michael Bennet, US Senate photo

Example #2: Michael Bennet did a somewhat better job of making an argument during an exchange about child separations at the southern border. His method was to make one simple point without trying to elaborate on it:

“I think this is one in the end that we agree with. There's not a single person on this stage if we were president would ever separate a child from their parents at the border. And that is what this... (APPLAUSE)

“That is what this administration has done in the American people's name. They have turned our border into a symbol of nativist hostility. The symbol of this country before Donald Trump was president was the Statue of Liberty. That should be the symbol of the United States of America, not Donald Trump's words.”

And, at that point, the moderator cut him off. Time had already run out. Still, Bennet had squeezed in a complete argument.

Bennet could make a complete argument only because he narrowed his focus to one single part of the immigration problem, basing his argument on a simple shared value He didn’t try to give economic or sociological statistics. He made his argument, but at the cost of being shallow.

There’s been much controversy about the Democratic National Committee’s decision to allow so many candidates to climb onto the debate stage. Many of these candidates know they have no hope of becoming president and I can only speculate on their motives for running. If we had, let’s say, four candidates on the stage, it might be possible to have a decent debate. A good debate requires in-depth argument, but the crowded format didn't make that possible.

P.S.: Intercollegiate debating was the highlight of my college education (although I have much praise for the outstanding classes that I took at the College of William and Mary), but schools afflicted by tight budgets have cut back their debating programs; the last university at which I taught did not even offer intercollegiate debate and speech contests. Here’s a wonderful article in The New Republic about the benefits of debate education. Debate education teaches research and critical thinking skills; debaters learn to see both sides of a topic without falling victim to bothsidesism. By the way, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and Ted Cruz (among others) had debate experience.

P.P.S. I also blogged about format weaknesses in the previous Democratic primary debates:

The First Democratic Primary Debate: A Poor Format Wrecked the Debate

The Second Democratic Primary Debate: The Poor Format Wrecked This Debate Even Worse

And here are my comments about the apocalyptic July 30, 2019 debate.