Trump Said the Coronavirus Is "Not My Fault" in his Second 2020 Debate against Joe Biden

Coronavirus, CDC Image

During his last presidential debate against Joe Biden, President Donald Trump said that the coronavirus epidemic is “not my fault.” He did not, however, mean what his critics think he meant. Trump didn't just reject policy; he rejected analytical argument. 

As I write this post, there have been, according to the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 42,343,866 cases of the 2019 coronavirus, of which 8,508,467 have been in the United States of America. That’s more than 20% of the worldwide total. Of 1,146,221 global deaths from the disease, 224,188 have been in the United States, far more than any other nation. That’s more than 19% of the worldwide total. Yet, the United States has only 4.23% of the world’s population. Coronavirus has hit us harder than any other nation. 

In the debate, Trump denied that the pandemic was his fault:

“I take full responsibility. It's not my fault that it came here. It's China's fault. You know what, it's not Joe's fault that it came here either. It's China's fault. They kept it from going into the rest of China, for the most part, but they didn't keep it from coming out to the world including Europe and ourselves.” 

“It’s not my fault” has become Trump’s mantra. Someone who takes “full responsibility” does not say “it’s not my fault” in the next sentence. This statement, which Trump made in the first 12 minutes of the debate, was his crucial argument. As always with Trump, however, there’s more than meets the eye. 

Responding, Biden distinguished – as he should have – between the virus arriving in the United States and what actions the government took after it arrived: 

“The fact is, when we knew it was coming, when it hit — What happened? What did the President say? He said don't worry, it's going to go away, it’s going to be gone by Easter. Don't worry, the warm weather. Don't worry, maybe inject bleach — he said he was kidding when he said that, but a lot of people thought it was serious. A whole range of things the President said. And even today, he thinks we are in control. We're about to lose 200,000 more people.”

Biden's more analytical response appealed to his own voting base, but Trump's supporters are unlikely to see his point.  

To understand what Trump said, to comprehend why so many of his supporters think he’s done a great job with the coronavirus, we need to see that Trump's supporters do not, by and large, think the same way as Trump’s opponents. They live in a different mental and social universe. Critical thinking is not part of their bargain. When Trump said “It's not my fault that it came here. It's China's fault,” his base voters did not hear weakness. Instead, they quickly understood that he was defending them from a Chinese conspiracy. 

Two different arguments!

So, we have two distinct lines of argument: conspiracy argument and analytical argument.  Conspiracy argument focuses on how the virus started.  Analytical argument discusses what we can do to stop the virus. Trump’s main line of attack – just like his mainline argument in his recent 60 Minutes interview – was to say that it wasn’t his fault. President Trump is obviously not responsible for what happened in China. He is, however, responsible for his actions after the pandemic spread to the United States. We have passed the point where Trump can say that the virus will go away without hurting anyone. He sidestepped whether his subsequent policies, like inadequate testing, failing to provide medical equipment, or not encouraging masks, were his fault. 

Earlier Post: Trump Denied that the Virus Was His Fault in His 60 Minutes Interview

Why would that persuade his supporters? To understand this, we need to understand two different kinds of audiences. One kind of audience analyzes facts and figures and studies cause and effect. If we have a problem, let’s figure out what caused it, and find a way to remove the cause. That, by the way, is how high school and college debaters are trained to think. In high school and college debate, the idea is to find a problem, identify a cause, remove the cause, and prove that the solution doesn’t cause more problems than it solves. In an article that I published about what debaters call the stock issues, I explain how this kind of  analytical thinking arises from theories of ethics and morals. Public policy should bring widespread benefit to the public without causing unnecessary harm.

Analytical argument

Here's an example of the analytical approach. An August 2020 article in Counter Punch listed five failures of Trump’s policy that spread the pandemic across the land: for example, he delayed taking decisive action, failed to encourage mask-wearing, and delayed the production of necessary medical equipment. Trump’s policy failures, they say, aggravated the crisis. 

Similarly, an article on the liberal website Vox faulted Trump for downplaying the crisis and dismantling the nation's pandemic plan. That is, they argue that he could have done more to deal with the pandemic. That, also, is an analytical approach. Biden's own response, quote above, was analytical.
 

Conspiracy argument

Many people, however, do not think that way. Many people think instead that the world is controlled by vast, impersonal forces that wish them harm. Many conservatives today fear something called “the New World Order.” They think that mysterious, malicious forces control public policy. It is only natural for them to assume that the far-away Chinese government would conspire against them.  Pew Research found that “about a third (34%) of Republicans and independents who lean to the GOP say the theory that powerful people intentionally planned the COVID-19 outbreak is probably or definitely true, compared with 18% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.” 

For example, about 50% of Trump’s supporters see merit in the bizarre QAnon conspiracy theory. Or consider megachurch pastor and enthusiastic Trump supporter Rodney Howard-Browne, who told his congregation last March to ignore coronavirus restrictions because the coronavirus was really just a scare tactic of people who seek world domination: “Because the climate change narrative for global governance failed, they are using the World Health Organization to then come in and take over the control of nations and then they are going to bring in vaccines.” Howard-Browne is not an outlier: if readers wonder why white evangelical Christians support Trump so enthusiastically, Howard-Browne’s reasoning could explain that.  Trump is, they think, protecting them from conspiracies. The coronavirus is, to them, just one part of that imaginary global menace.  

Conclusion

So, whose fault is it that our nation is ravaged by a virus? Many people, including most university professors and mainstream media writers, will take an analytical approach. By an analytical approach, yes, it’s pretty much Trump’s fault.  For example, a recent study published in Nature Medicine found that universal mask-wearing could prevent more than 100,000 coronavirus deaths in the next few months. Yet Trump still fails to encourage masks. 

But if we think that the virus is only one part of a massive conspiracy created by China and other mysterious international forces, then, no, it’s not Trump’s fault. By that line of thinking, the United States does not need masks, social distancing, or quarantines. Instead, we need someone who will fight the global conspiracy.

If we think (as I do) that the pandemic’s cause is a virus spread by nature, we want to take public health measures. If we think that an enemy did it to us – China, for example – we want someone to protect us from our enemy. That protection is what Trump offers his supporters. And, to all appearances, they feel a need for nothing else.

In the meantime, reality always wins. Always. Our nation is needlessly ravaged by disease. Please, dear reader, wear a mask when you go out in public. It’s not that hard.

Technical note: If you'd like to see my publications about stock issues in debate, click the link to “William D. Harpine's Publications” above. 

Trump's 60 Minutes Interview Was a Study in How to Shut Down Debate

Not only do we have the third 2020 presidential debate tonight, but President Donald Trump posted a crudely-recorded advance video of his interview with Leslie Stahl for this weekend’s 60 Minutes episode. On his Facebook page, Trump complained : “Look at the bias, hatred and rudeness on behalf of 60 Minutes and CBS. Tonight’s anchor, Kristen Welker, is far worse!” There’s a lot to digest there. My impression is that Trump interrupted almost every question that Stahl asked after only a few words. That does not bode well for tonight’s debate: is he going to interrupt constantly, preventing any rational discussion of ideas? We’ll soon find out.

Trump's interview seemed to serve two purposes: he denied responsibility for anything, and pictured himself as a victim of a hostile press. The mainstream media, of course, characterizes his behavior as immature and irresponsible. They are obviously correct. So why would he choose such a course of action? Let’s take a look at the alternative framework from which Trump was speaking.

At one point, when Stahl tried to ask him a question, Trump interrupted, said that she was being unfair, and claimed: “We have a great record. I mean, we got hit by a pandemic. Wasn’t my fault. It’s China’s fault.”

When she tried to get in a word to finish her line of questioning, Trump interrupted again: “But Lesley, we’re in the White House. The press is biased, very, very biased.” Was he trying to discredit the press? Trump's prompt response was, “You discredit yourself.”

Most professors and mainstream news media, and, for that matter, many college-educated people probably find that astonishing. When he does answer the questions? Every question that Leslie Stahl asked was entirely predictable. Could he not have canned answers ready for them? To understand that, we need to look at an alternative perspective. The conservative media do not just deal in what Kellyanne Conway calls “alternative facts.” They also live in an alternative value universe. It isn't just about facts; the conservative media depict a universe in which liberals, immigrants, and minorities are enemies, and that Trump is protecting his people from these evil forces. 


Earlier Post: Franklin Graham Used Debate-Stoppers to Attack Trump's "Enemies"

First, when I was younger, conservatives liked to say that their three values were “limited government, liberty, and personal responsibility.” Let's think about "personal responsibility." When they say “personal responsibility,” what conservatives mean is that they want poor people to fend for themselves and not to expect government handouts. But isn’t it fair to ask conservatives to be responsible for their own mistakes? Apparently not.

The United States has done poorly during the coronavirus epidemic, with approximately 19% of the known coronavirus deaths. The United States' unemployment rate is about 7.9%, far higher than when Trump took office. Does Trump take responsibility? No, he blamed it on China: “wasn’t my fault.”

Second, anyone who follows conservative media has been warned for years – decades – not to trust the mainstream media. Such outlets as Fox News, the Christian Broadcasting Network, talk radio shows, and Breitbart routinely tell people that the mainstream media are not to be trusted. An article in the conservative The Hill by Bernard Goldberg commented that, “A lot of us figured out a long time ago that many journalists had a political ax to grind — and it was a bias that usually went in just one direction.”

So, when Trump pictured himself as a helpless victim of the news media – carefully not letting Leslie Stahl explain her points or even finish her questions – he was not accepting responsibility for his own mistakes or opinions. He was, however, fitting into a preconceived narrative that tens of millions of Americans, including, presumably, pretty much his entire base, take for granted.

And so, many people live in a world of alternative facts. For some of us, reality takes second place to political agendas. Trump’s seemingly immature rejection of responsibility or truth, like his eagerness to blame his problems on China, the media, and any other convenient target, fits right into that alternative reality.

Yes, the mainstream media made fun of Trump’s ridiculous interview. That does not, however, mean that it hurt him politically. If anything, it is quite possible that his voters will be especially motivated to turn out and vote to resist what Trump called the biased and unfair media.

Think of it in religious terms. Many Trump voters do! Conservative Pastor David Barton called Donald Trump “God’s Guy.”  For voters who think that any criticism of Trump borders on sacrilege and blasphemy (and many voters think just that!), questioning details about his policies and ideas makes no sense at all. During his 60 Minutes interview, Trump pictured himself as a warrior for good who is failing only because evil people and wicked, unnamed forces stood in his way.


Earlier Post: Pastor Paula White Used Religion to Shut Down Political Debate

Trump was not trying to have a dialogue. He was trying to shut down debate. He claimed that the discussion was unfair, and therefore he did not need to participate. There are many ways to stop a debate, and debate-stoppers have a long history in the conservative media. The argument is not, "I'm right and you are wrong, and here's why." The argument is, "How dare you criticize me!"

Thus, Trump's theme is that it “wasn’t my fault.” His theme is not what he's done; his boast is that the problems aren't his responsibility. The buck stops everywhere except on his desk. 

 

P.S. I wrote about debate-stoppers a few years ago in an article entitled "Spurious Quotations and the Gun Control Debate: The Manufacturing of an Argument from Tradition.” Click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above and scroll down. Most large libraries have the article’s text on their databases.

P.P.S. Not all Christians support Trump. A Christian group recently formed a political action committee to oppose Trump and his policies. 

Image: Donald Trump, White House photo

The First Trump-Biden Debate: Do Coronavirus Masks Show Weakness?

I guess President Donald Trump showed that he is a tough guy, participating in a televised debate while seriously ill. I also guess that he also showed that he is foolish and irresponsible enough to participate while he was contagious. Trump ended up in the hospital yesterday. It turns out that he and his staff have known for 3 days that he had the coronavirus. He has had symptoms even longer.

During their first (and, given his illness, probably only) 2020 debate, Trump mocked former Vice President Joe Biden for routinely wearing masks to protect against coronavirus transmission. Well, let us all hope that Trump recovers. Let us also hope that this terrible pandemic quickly gets under control. Center for Disease Control Director Robert Redfield said just last month that a mask prevents coronavirus transmission even better than a potential vaccine. Yet, Trump rarely wears one. It has become a badge of pride among Republicans to go around maskless. And yet, the White House repeatedly ignores basic public health measures. Recent reports show that the White House staff members have not been wearing masks, screening visitors, or practicing social distance. The Atlantic’s White House reporter Peter Nicholas documents that this carelessness continues even as the President rests in his hospital bed. 

Earlier Post: Trump Interrupted Biden during Their Debate to Keep Him from Making His Points 

Project Strength, Not Wisdom?

George Lakoff, a top linguist, says that conservative voters want leaders who are strong and powerful. Strong leaders make them feel safer. He calls this the “strong father” metaphor. In contrast, liberal voters more often prefer nurturing leaders. Lakoff calls this the “nurturing mother” metaphor. Let us, just for the moment, overlook his gender stereotypes and think about what this means for last Tuesday’s Trump-Biden debate. Press commentary focused on Trump’s extremely aggressive behavior and repeated interruptions, which I blogged about earlier. (This does not, as has been pointed out to me, mean that Biden was a model of good manners.)

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

Masks Show Weakness? Really?

So, yes, Trump interrupted and overwhelmed Biden to show that he was tough. The most important thing he did, however, was to mock Biden for mask-wearing. Let’s look at this exchange when moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump about masks:   

WALLACE

Gentlemen, we’re going to go on to another subject. You have begun to increasingly question the effectiveness of masks as a disease preventer, and in fact recently you have cited the, the issue of waiters touching their masks and touching plates. Are you questioning the effectiveness of masks? 

TRUMP

No, you have to understand -- if you look, I mean, I have a mask right here. [The mask rested in Trump’s pocket, where it didn’t do much good.] I put the mask on it, you know what I think I need it. As an example, everybody’s had a test, and you’ve had social distancing and all of the things that you have to, but I wear a mask, when needed -- when needed, I wear masks. I don’t—I don’t wear masks like him. Every time you see him, he’s got a mask. He could be speaking 200 feet away from me, and he shows up with the biggest mask I’ve ever seen. 

Note Trump’s key point, making Biden seem fearful: “I don’t—I don’t wear masks like him. Every time you see him, he’s got a mask. He could be speaking 200 feet away from me, and he shows up with the biggest mask I’ve ever seen.”  The idea was that Trump was tough and Biden wasn’t.

 

When Wallace later asked Biden about masks, Trump retorted that not everyone agreed about them:

 

WALLACE

I was asking, sir, about masks. 

BIDEN

Oh. Masks -- masks make a big difference. His own head of the CDC said if we just wore masks between now -- if everybody wore masks and social distancing between now and January, we’d probably save up to 100,000 lives. It matters, 

TRUMP

And they’ve also said the opposite. They’ve also said the --

BIDEN

No serious person has said the opposite --

TRUMP

What about Dr. Fauci? Dr. Fauci said the opposite. 

BIDEN

He did not say the opposite. 

 

And so forth. Trump interrupted repeatedly; again, his purpose was to cast doubt on masks

 

Now, although there was some disagreement about masks early in the pandemic, that controversy has ended except for the shouting and the conspiracy theories. The CDC's current guidance says: 

"Masks are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the mask coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control."

However, debating while he was (as we have since learned) already ill from coronavirus, Trump continued to rant that masks showed weakness. 

 

Final Thought: Can’t We Be Wise and Strong?

 

One White House employee and Republican politician after another is being diagnosed with coronavirus. As of this writing, the most recent are North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Social media bots are now telling us that the Republicans are getting sick because Democratic operatives and Chinese spies are spreading the disease to them. A more likely explanation is that the Republicans foolishly refused to wear masks.

 

Republican politicians and conservative media pundits have ridiculed mask-wearers as weak and fearful. Trump continued that pattern during Tuesday’s debate when he made fun of Biden for wearing a big mask. And yet, Trump is now ill. Reality invades Republicans’ specious rhetoric as they catch the coronavirus. It seems that wearing a mask shows intelligence and good judgment. The false bravado of not wearing a mask merely spreads disease. Yes, a leader must be strong. But one can be compassionate and wise at the same time. It’s not either/or.

 

 

P.S.: I contributed a chapter, “It Was Not About the Issues: Ethos in the 2004 Presidential Debates,” to Ed Hinck’s volumes about presidential debating. George W. Bush’s thesis was that a president must be “resolute.” John Kerry, in contrast, responded that a president needs to be “smart.” Neither noticed that a president must be both. As the Bible says, there is nothing new under the sun. Click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above for more information. 

Thanks to the Tennessean for promptly posting an excellent debate transcript. 

Image: CDC

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.