tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/debates-6818/articlesDebates – The Conversation2023-09-28T05:39:02Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2134332023-09-28T05:39:02Z2023-09-28T05:39:02ZIn fractious debate, GOP candidates find common ground on cause of inflation woes and need for school choice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/550803/original/file-20230928-19-kzxcm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2634%2C1825&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy debate the finer points.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-presidential-candidates-florida-gov-ron-desantis-news-photo/1705132466?adppopup=true">Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>It was a night in which even “<a href="https://www.reaganfoundation.org/education/virtual-learning-hub/the-great-communicator/">the great communicator</a>” himself may have struggled to be heard.</em></p>
<p><em>At the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California on Sept. 27, 2023, seven Republican candidates looking to become the leading challenger to the absent GOP front-runner Donald Trump <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/09/27/1201848640/second-republican-debate-california">interrupted, cross-talked and bickered</a> – often to the exasperation of the presidential debate moderators.</em></p>
<p><em>And yet, between the heated exchanges, important economic and business issues were discussed – from national debt and government shutdowns to labor disputes and even school choice. One thing the candidates agreed on: They aren’t fans of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/15/what-is-bidenomics-president-biden-s-economic-philosophy-explained/e9ba8398-3b9b-11ee-aefd-40c039a855ba_story.html">Bidenomics</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Listening in for The Conversation were economists <a href="https://www.gonzaga.edu/school-of-business-administration/faculty/detail/herzogr">Ryan Herzog</a> of Gonzaga University and University of Tennessee’s <a href="https://web.utk.edu/%7Eccarrut1/">Celeste K. Carruthers</a>. Here are their main takeaways from the debate.</em></p>
<h2>Inflation talk assigns blame, falls flat on solutions</h2>
<p><strong>Ryan Herzog, Gonzaga University</strong></p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-voters-white-house-doing-more-harm-than-good-inflation">most recent Fox News survey</a> showed that 91% of Americans are worried about inflation and 80% about rising housing costs. I tuned into the second GOP debate hoping to hear how the candidates would solve these problems. I was left disappointed. </p>
<p>Not a single candidate mentioned rising housing costs, and few even acknowledged inflation. Given how much the issue has dominated the news, I assumed the candidates would mention it more than the <a href="https://rollcall.com/2023/08/24/transcript-gop-presidential-hopefuls-debate-in-milwaukee">eight times</a> they did in the prior debate. I was wrong. </p>
<p>First, let’s check some inflation facts. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley claimed that the average household is spending US$7,000 more per year on groceries and gas because of inflation. I believe she also meant to include <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/11/economy/inflation-rate-spending/index.html">housing costs</a>. The latest data shows the annual inflation for food at home – as opposed to restaurant meals – is rising less than 3% per year. While that’s up 24% <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=19mVB">since the start of the pandemic</a>, it’s far below what you’d need for an increase of nearly $600 per month. </p>
<p>Next, former Vice President Mike Pence said that recent wage gains have not kept up with inflation. But according to the most recent data, average wage growth has actually <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/01/business/economy/wage-growth-inflation.html">outpaced inflation</a>. Indeed, workers in lower-wage industries that are seeing labor shortages, such as the leisure and hospitality sector, have seen <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/29/low-income-wages-employment-00097135">very substantial pay increases</a>. </p>
<p>Nearly every candidate blamed inflation on <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/government-spending-fuels-inflation-covid-relief-pandemic-debt-federal-reserve-stimulus-powell-biden-stagflation-11645202057">excessive federal spending</a>. Under Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden, the total level of U.S. government debt increased by nearly $8 trillion and $4.5 trillion, <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=18YJx">respectively</a>. As expected, most candidates proposed cutting government spending and taxes to help struggling families. But it’s unclear whether those policies, taken together, would be effective at lowering inflation.</p>
<p>The candidates also agreed on the need to promote U.S. energy independence – through drilling, fracking and coal – to promote low and stable inflation. But while reducing energy costs would support lower inflation, there was zero discussion of how new technologies like artificial intelligence could be used to fight inflation – for example, by improving productivity. In the end, most candidates resorted to old arguments and avoided debate on 21st-century solutions.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J2KCL28bR7o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>School choice is common refrain, but evidence on impact is mixed</h2>
<p><strong>Celeste K. Carruthers, University of Tennessee</strong> </p>
<p>Before a commercial break midway through the debate, moderators teased viewers to return for questions on education in the U.S. It’s understandable that voters would want to hear what candidates have to say on the issue. Younger students have <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/ltt/2022/">a long way to go</a> to recover from COVID-era learning losses, and many families are dissatisfied with public education to the point that they are <a href="https://www.urban.org/research/publication/where-kids-went-nonpublic-schooling-and-demographic-change-during-pandemic">leaving public schools</a> for home school and private school options. The education portion of the debate ended up being a short exchange, however, with more focus on immigration, inflation, border security, foreign policy and the opioid epidemic. </p>
<p>One common theme across candidates was at least a brief mention of school choice. School choice describes a variety of different policies that give the parents of pre-K-12 students more options for where they send their kids to school. These options can include charter schools, magnet schools, public schools outside of a student’s school zone or in another district, or even private schools. </p>
<p>Gov. Haley voiced a <a href="https://www.hoover.org/research/school-vouchers-next-great-leap-forward">commonly held view</a> among school choice supporters that providing students with more schooling options improves education by encouraging competition. Gov. DeSantis referenced “universal school choice” in his home state of Florida, which <a href="https://www.the74million.org/article/florida-just-became-the-nations-biggest-school-choice-laboratory/">recently passed legislation</a> that allows any student to apply for several thousand dollars in state funds that can be used toward private school tuition. </p>
<p>Researchers have found that earlier phases of private school vouchers in Florida led to <a href="https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26758/w26758.pdf">improvements</a> in public school student test scores, absenteeism and suspensions, which supports the idea that competition from private schools can benefit students who opt not to use vouchers and stay in public schools.</p>
<p>Private school vouchers are, however, a contentious topic. Opponents of vouchers and school choice policies more generally argue that they put traditional public schools at a <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-policymakers-should-reject-k-12-school-voucher-plans">financial disadvantage</a>. Critics have also noted that some of the early voucher advocates viewed them as a way to <a href="https://www.chalkbeat.org/2017/7/23/21107262/critics-of-vouchers-say-they-re-marred-by-racism-and-exacerbate-segregation-are-they-right">avoid racial integration</a>. </p>
<p>Additionally, school choice can theoretically lead to sorting, where higher-achieving or higher-income students group together, and this can be detrimental to lower-achieving students who are left behind. There is <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1257/jel.20150679">evidence of sorting like this</a>, particularly in large-scale voucher systems outside the U.S. </p>
<p>Florida’s newly expanded model of school choice is <a href="https://www.the74million.org/article/florida-just-became-the-nations-biggest-school-choice-laboratory/">one of the most comprehensive</a> in the country. <a href="https://www.vox.com/politics/23689496/school-choice-education-savings-accounts-american-federation-children">Several other states</a> have also recently revised their school choice policies, generally extending eligibility for vouchers and education savings accounts beyond needy populations. In time, we can expect the evidence on school choice to grow substantially and perhaps occupy more attention in future debates.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213433/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With Donald Trump absent again, Republican presidential hopefuls took potshots at each other but agreed that Bidenomics isn’t cutting it.Ryan Herzog, Associate Professor of Economics, Gonzaga UniversityCeleste K. Carruthers, Professor of Economics, University of TennesseeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2049722023-08-21T12:27:19Z2023-08-21T12:27:19ZPresidential pauses? What those ‘ums’ and ‘uhs’ really tell us about candidates for the White House<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542833/original/file-20230815-19-dgdqtx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C4%2C3178%2C1851&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Up for debate? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/this-combination-of-pictures-created-on-october-22-2020-news-photo/1229229316?adppopup=true">Brendan Smialowski/Jim Watson/Morrry Gash/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nine. That is the number of “uhs” that former President Barack Obama uttered in a period of two minutes during a 2012 presidential debate. Other Obama “uh” counters, such as <a href="https://www.ling.upenn.edu/people/liberman">University of Pennsylvania linguist Mark Liberman</a>, clocked him as using “uhs” and “ums” – hesitation markers known as “filled pauses” in linguistspeak – <a href="https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=35174">roughly every 19 words</a> during one interview. </p>
<p>By comparison, former President Donald Trump rarely uses them at all – as infrequently as once every 117 words.</p>
<p>Considering Obama’s skill as an <a href="https://psmag.com/news/the-effectiveness-of-obamas-oratory">orator garners high praise</a>, while Trump’s eloquence is less often so regaled, what’s to be made of this great, uh, imbalance? </p>
<p>In ordinary circumstances, maybe not too much. </p>
<p>But heading into the Republican presidential primary debates, which <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/10/politics/first-republican-debate-who-has-qualified/index.html">kick off on Aug. 23, 2023</a>, you can bet some viewers and political commentators will be poring over every utterance of the candidates for clues about how they might perform as nominee of the party. </p>
<p>And going into the 2024 presidential race, expect more on Biden’s speech as a reflection of his competency, along the lines of the newspaper columnist who <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/05/06/when-bidens-own-people-dont-trust-him-to-speak-we-have-no-real-president/">dismissed the president as</a> the “wonderful Wizard of Ahs and Ums.”</p>
<h2>So who is prone to ‘umming’?</h2>
<p>But what if a bit of hesitation turns out to be not such a bad thing? </p>
<p>In my work <a href="https://www.unr.edu/english/people/valerie-fridland">as a linguist</a> and author of “<a href="https://abc.nl/book-details/like-literally-dude/$9780593298329">Like, Literally, Dude: Arguing for the Good in Bad English</a>,” I uncovered surprising evidence that filled pauses are not the mark of incompetence and inarticulateness they are often held to be. In fact, research suggests filled pauses often aid understanding. Studies into their use also reveal why we utter them and who is more prone to using them.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/variation-and-change-in-the-use-of-hesitation-markers-in-germanic">research on languages ranging from English to Dutch, German, Danish and Norwegian</a> has shown that “uhs” are more often uttered by men and older people, while “ums” are <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/76394539.pdf">the up-and-coming trend among women and those who don’t remember a time before TikTok</a>. </p>
<p>And then there <a href="https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=14015">are the geographical preferences</a>. Southerners and New Englanders tend to “uh,” while Midwesterners prefer “um” – at least when tweeting.</p>
<p>Perhaps even more surprising, as someone’s education level and socioeconomic status go up, <a href="https://doi.org//10.1075/ijcl.16.2.02tot">research suggests</a> so does their rate of “umming” and “uhing.”</p>
<h2>Deliberate debate device</h2>
<p>Nonetheless, filled pauses have long been treated as the bane of public speaking and a mark of anxiety.</p>
<p>Yet psycholinguists who study speech hiccups <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3">suggest much the opposite</a>: Filled pauses are less about our speech struggles and more about signaling upcoming linguistic and semantic complexity. That is, “ums” and “uhs” emerge because we are doing more work in terms of planning and executing the next thing we need to say. </p>
<p>What this means is that filled pauses are found to most often occur right before speakers describe <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00068.x">more abstract or difficult concepts</a> or when they use <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097902200301">less familiar or uncommon words</a>. “Ums” and “uhs” also increase when speakers <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/002383096500800302">start a sentence</a>, since <a href="https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0693">they are mapping out the whole sentence structure</a>.</p>
<p>Their use also increases when <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.60.3.362">there are a number of competing word options to choose from</a>, like when selecting among novel and politically advantageous adjectives to describe the health of the economy or an aging opponent.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man in a suit looks downward." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542975/original/file-20230816-22-3y9yj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542975/original/file-20230816-22-3y9yj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542975/original/file-20230816-22-3y9yj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542975/original/file-20230816-22-3y9yj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542975/original/file-20230816-22-3y9yj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542975/original/file-20230816-22-3y9yj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542975/original/file-20230816-22-3y9yj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Is Republican presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis an ‘ummer’?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/florida-governor-and-2024-republican-presidential-hopeful-news-photo/1561386818?adppopup=true">Sergio Flores/AFP via Getty Images)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In short, they are used in places where harder thinking is required. These are exactly the linguistic challenges that politicians face when answering debate questions requiring complex terminology and strategic word choices. </p>
<p>Sometimes “ums” and “uhs” simply buy a speaker processing time to figure out what to say when they are uncertain. Taking a verbal pause instead of a silent one makes it crystal clear that one still intends to contribute to the conversation – particularly vital in a debate where floor time is the equivalent of political gold.</p>
<h2>‘Uh … I’m talking here!’</h2>
<p>Remarkably, in addition to helping speakers come up with what they want to say, “ums” and “uhs” also do a listener a service by alerting them to the fact that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3">there’s going to be a delay</a> and cues them to listen up because <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03194926">something harder to comprehend</a> is coming their way.</p>
<p>This signaling helps listeners understand what you are saying. That’s because, even past our teenage years, we are still fairly lazy listeners. Adding in an “um” or “uh” can help tear the listener away from their iPhone or other distractions and alert them to the fact that something new and difficult is coming up.</p>
<p>For instance, if we had been having a conversation about dogs, and I start a new sentence by saying “The daw …” <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00723.x">psycholinguistic evidence</a> tells us that your brain goes right to “dog” without even waiting to hear the rest of the word. But what if I was actually going to say donkey? Then you are thrown for a loop. But if I first inserted a filled pause, such as “the, uh, donkey,” listeners are much quicker to identify a new word in the sentence, as the “uh” seems to <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1021980931292">alert us to expect something unexpected</a>.</p>
<p>Another plus? The listener would be more likely to recall that we talked about donkeys later on, as a preceding filled pause has also been shown to have a positive effect on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.010">word recognition and recall</a>. </p>
<h2>The ponderous pause</h2>
<p>So, why such a bad rap for a speech feature that signals deep thinking and helps listeners comprehend what people are saying? </p>
<p>Probably because of the company it keeps. Filled pauses have often been grouped with other features of what is termed “disfluent” speech, such as repetitions, slips of the tongue and restarts, such as “wh-what?” </p>
<p>The <a href="https://pep-web.org/browse/document/SE.006.0000A">Freudian view</a> of such speech tics as symptoms of unconscious worries and desires drove much of the early research on such features. Though <a href="https://pep-web.org/browse/document/SE.006.0000A">early psychological research</a> did not find that filled pauses strongly correlated with anxiety, the stigma stuck around and affects regular people and presidents alike.</p>
<p>For instance, Biden has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/us/politics/joe-biden-debate-gaffes.html">been called out</a> for his combined filled pauses, repetitions and restarts, which have been blamed on a number of factors ranging from age-related confusion to public-speaking anxiety. </p>
<p>While it is true that <a href="https://doi.org//10.1037/a0019424">older speakers tend to use more filled pauses</a> than younger speakers, which could be <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/language-in-the-wild/202107/language-comprehension-and-the-aging-brain">related to age-related decline</a> in working memory, Biden <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2023/01/10/normalizing-stutters-bidens-and-his-own-00077269">also has a stutter</a>, which can affect filled pause use in ways that make it hard to compare his use of them with other presidents. </p>
<p>The reality is, like it or not, we all populate our pauses from time to time. As can be seen in the Obama vs. Trump filled-pause rates, we also have a unique signature pause pattern. In other words, some of us are, to put it in the words of <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02175503">one pause researcher</a>, “heavy ummers,” while others are “um-avoiders.” </p>
<p>What doesn’t change, however, is that they signal cognitive heavy lifting ahead.</p>
<p>So, as we head into the season of presidential stumping and debate, perhaps we can look past the pause when deciding how to weed out the good candidates from the bad.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204972/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Valerie M. Fridland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Long treated as a sign of anxiety or a delaying tactic, ‘filled pauses’ are a linguistic trick to signal that what you are about to say might be complicated.Valerie M. Fridland, Professor of Linguistics, University of Nevada, RenoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1829112022-05-20T12:42:57Z2022-05-20T12:42:57ZWhataboutism: what it is and why it’s such a popular tactic in arguments<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464475/original/file-20220520-11-yatomj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Whataboutism is often deployed when an argument is seen as a battle to be won and not a debate.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/furious-african-american-young-woman-yelling-1836397705">Prostock-studio | Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Whataboutism is an argumentative tactic where a person or group responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflection. Instead of addressing the point made, they counter it with “but what about X?”. </p>
<hr>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/whataboutism-what-it-is-and-why-its-such-a-popular-tactic-in-arguments-182911&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p><em>You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/audio-narrated-99682">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>As bickering couples and parents of siblings will know, this happens in daily life all too often. “You lied about where you were last night!” a person feeling wronged will say. To which, instead of owning up, the partner replies: “Well, what about you? You lie to me all the time!”</p>
<p>Similarly, in response to being told off for the state of her room, one child’s whataboutist reply will be to say: “But what about my brother’s room? His is worse.”</p>
<p>It happens on <a href="https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1499482546807189504?lang=en">social media</a>, in <a href="https://time.com/4941771/donald-trump-whataboutism-rhetoric/">politics</a> and in <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/domestic-violence-backlash-trolls-if-love-hurts-white-ribbon-day-peter-giblin-a8630476.html">societal</a> and <a href="https://oc-media.org/opinions/opinion-accepting-our-past-is-the-only-way-we-can-move-forward/">international conflict</a> too. To wit, UK prime minister Boris Johnson, in February 2022. In response to Keir Starmer’s accusation of wrongdoing in relation to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnson-fined-by-police-over-partygate-what-happens-next-181215">partygate affair</a>, Johnson sought to deflect attention by (falsely) accusing Starmer of failing to prosecute <a href="https://theconversation.com/jimmy-savile-how-the-netflix-documentary-fails-to-address-the-role-institutions-play-in-abuse-181383">Jimmy Savile</a> during his time as director of public prosecutions. </p>
<p>Media commentators have <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/when-it-comes-to-whataboutism-boris-johnson-has-learnt-from-the-master-donald-trump-cpv907s09">rightly pointed out</a> that Johnson was simply adopting what one journalist called Donald Trump’s <a href="https://time.com/4941771/donald-trump-whataboutism-rhetoric/">“favourite dodge”</a>. When criticised, Trump would routinely deflect attention by claiming that <a href="https://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520435073/trump-embraces-one-of-russias-favorite-propaganda-tactics-whataboutism?t=1652871959154">someone else was worse</a>. </p>
<p>The rise of social media and increasing political polarisation may well have made whataboutism <a href="https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/informit.014341720305132">more visible</a>. But it is certainly not a new tactic. It was, in fact, taught by <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sophist-philosophy">the sophists</a>, a group of lecturers, writers and teachers in Greece, over 2,500 years ago.</p>
<p>In some <a href="https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2558&context=ossaarchive">limited circumstances</a> it may be a legitimate tactic, for example, when it is relevant to highlight that the person making the accusation has a bias. For the most part, however, even if the person making the accusation is a hypocrite or has double standards, this does not mean that their accusation is false. </p>
<h2>Origins of whataboutism</h2>
<p>The exact term was <a href="https://wordhistories.net/2018/12/25/whataboutism-origin/">first used</a> in print by a reader named Lionel Bloch in 1978 in a letter to the Guardian. “Sir,” writes Bloch, “your leader [article], East, West and the plight of the warring rest (May 18), is the finest piece of ‘whataboutism’ I have read in many years.” He goes on to decry the use of this tactic as a “Soviet import” used by “progressive minds” to defend communism.</p>
<p>But Bloch’s usage derives from <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-roots-of-the-what-about-ploy-1497019827">earlier uses</a> of similar terms. In a letter to the Irish Times published on January 30 1974, reader Sean O’Conaill complains about the use of the tactic by IRA defenders, to whom he refers to as “the Whatabouts”. Three days later, the Irish journalist John Healy published a column in the same paper, on the same topic, dubbing the tactic “Whataboutery”.</p>
<p>Formally speaking, whataboutism is a fallacy most closely related to the <a href="https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#:%7E:text=of%20being%20wrong.-,Ad%20Hominem,%E2%80%9Cdirected%20at%20the%20person.%E2%80%9D">ad hominem fallacy</a>, wherein a person responds to an accusation by attacking the person making it. </p>
<p>It is a fallacy because even if the counter-accusation is true, it doesn’t defend whoever is being accused (the lying partner, the messy child, Donald Trump) in the first place. At best, it shows that both parties behaved shamefully. And, of course, two wrongs do not make a right.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Donal Trump in a black suit and blue tie stands behind a lecturn in front of US flags and gestures in disbelief." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464492/original/file-20220520-15-ss257d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464492/original/file-20220520-15-ss257d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464492/original/file-20220520-15-ss257d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464492/original/file-20220520-15-ss257d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464492/original/file-20220520-15-ss257d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464492/original/file-20220520-15-ss257d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464492/original/file-20220520-15-ss257d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Whataboutism was, as one journalist put it, Donald Trump’s favourite dodge when faced with hard questions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/new-york-ny-september-26-2018-1190031697">Evan El-Amin | Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In philosophy, an <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/argument/">argument</a> is a reasoned debate aimed at truth. But in many other contexts, people often do not view arguments in this way. They view them, rather, as battles to be won. Their goal is to get their opponent to concede as much as possible without their conceding anything themselves.</p>
<p>Viewed in this way, whataboutism is an effective strategy. It works on the principle that offence is the best form of defence. By launching a <a href="http://changingminds.org/techniques/conversation/excusing/counterattack.htm">counter-attack</a>, you place your opponent on the back foot.</p>
<h2>Why whataboutism is so popular</h2>
<p><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691618817753">Psychologists</a> suggest that this view of arguments is prevalent in political debate because it is driven by partisan bias. When confronted by an opponent with a different political viewpoint, you are more likely to view what they say as an attack to be countered, rather than a point to be debated.</p>
<p>More pernicious is when whataboutism is put to work as a misinformation tool.
Since the cold war era <a href="https://www.economist.com/europe/2008/01/31/whataboutism">Russian propagandists</a> have responded to criticism of Russian policies by immediately pointing out that western countries have similar policies. </p>
<p>The same ploy is routinely seen in other conflict situations. <a href="https://thediplomat.com/2021/02/responding-to-chinese-whataboutism-on-uyghur-and-native-genocides/">Chinese propagandists</a> have used it to deflect criticism of how China’s Uyghur population is treated. <a href="https://www.irrawaddy.com/opinion/guest-column/beware-the-myanmar-juntas-whataboutism.html">Junta propagandists</a> in Myanmar have used it similarly when criticised for the regime’s treatment of Rohingya muslims. The list goes on.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://iep.utm.edu/sophists/">sophists</a> were the propagandists of ancient times. They prided themselves on being able to convince an audience – using any means available, including whataboutism – of any conclusion, irrespective of its truth. </p>
<p><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/">Plato</a> was an ardent critic of the sophists. He vehemently made the point that arguments should be aimed at truth. His most famous work in this respect is the <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1672/1672-h/1672-h.htm">Gorgias</a> dialogue, which sees Socrates and Callicles debate the good and evil of man. Fittingly, it contains the earliest example of whataboutism that I have been able to find and the best response to it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Socrates: You’re breaking your original promise, Callicles. If what you say contradicts what you really think, your value as my partner in searching for the truth will be at an end.</p>
<p>Callicles: You don’t always say what you think either, Socrates.</p>
<p>Socrates: Well, if that’s true, it only makes me just as bad as you …</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182911/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Curtis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As strategies go, whataboutism is more attack than debate. Using it isn’t about reasoned argument but winning a fight, no matter the cost to truth.Benjamin Curtis, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Ethics, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1478072020-10-20T12:23:42Z2020-10-20T12:23:42ZRussian media may be joining China and Iran in turning on Trump<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363996/original/file-20201016-15-iq52wa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=36%2C89%2C3472%2C2241&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Chinese outlets that once relayed cautious optimism over Donald Trump's deal-making abilities now express exasperation over his chaotic style.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/newspaper-featuring-a-front-page-story-about-the-meeting-news-photo/1067885236?adppopup=true">Greg Baker/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It can be easy to overlook how the rest of the world is making sense of America’s chaotic campaign season. </p>
<p>But in many cases, they’re paying attention just as closely as U.S. voters are. After all, who wins the U.S. presidency has <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1940161218786426">implications for countries around the world</a>. </p>
<p>Since Sept. 22, we’ve been using machine-learning algorithms to identify the predominant themes in foreign media coverage.</p>
<p>How different countries cover the race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden can shed some light on how foreign citizens discern the candidates and the American political process, especially in places that have strict <a href="https://rsf.org/en/ranking">state control of media</a> like China, Russia and Iran. </p>
<p>Unlike in the U.S., where there is a cacophony of perspectives, by and large the media in these three countries follow very similar narratives.</p>
<p>In 2016, <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Global-Media-and-Strategic-Narratives-of-Contested-Democracy-Chinese-Russian/Hinck-Cooley-Kluver/p/book/9780367257798">we did the same exercise</a>. Back then, one of the main themes that emerged was the decline of U.S. democracy. With scandal and the disillusionment of voters <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-media-outlets-from-around-the-world-are-reacting-to-the-presidential-campaign-66263">dominating the headlines</a>, America’s global competitors used the 2016 election to advance their own political narratives about U.S. decline. </p>
<p>Some of these themes have emerged in the coverage of the current race. But the biggest difference is their portrayal of Trump. </p>
<p>The last election cycle, candidate Trump was an unknown. Although foreign nations acknowledged his political inexperience, they were cautiously optimistic about Trump’s deal-making ability. Russian media outlets <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37928171">were particularly bullish on Trump’s potential</a>. </p>
<p>Now, however, the feelings appear to have changed. China, Iran and even Russia seem to crave a return to normalcy – and, to some extent, American leadership in the world.</p>
<h2>Dissecting the debate</h2>
<p>To assess how America’s competitors make sense of the 2020 campaign, we tracked over 20 prominent news outlets from Chinese, Russian and Iranian native language media. We used <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_clustering_algorithms">automatic clustering algorithms</a> to identify key narrative themes in the coverage and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentiment_analysis">sentiment analysis</a> to track how each country viewed the candidates. We then reviewed this AI-extracted information to validate our findings. </p>
<p>While our results are still preliminary, they shed light on how these countries’ media outlets are portraying the two candidates. Two key moments from the 2020 campaign – the first debate and Trump’s coronavirus diagnosis – are particularly illustrative. </p>
<p>After the first debate, the Chinese media questioned its usefulness to voters and generally portrayed Trump’s performance in a negative light. To them, the “chaotic” back-and-forth was a sobering reflection of America’s political turbulence. </p>
<p>They described Trump as purposely sabotaging the debate by interrupting his opponent and, in the days after the debate, noted that his performance failed to improve <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/10/4/21501223/2020-polls-biden-leads-trump-debate-covid-19-nbc-wsj-reuters-ipsos">his lagging poll numbers</a>. Biden was criticized for being unable to articulate concrete policies, but was nonetheless praised for being able to avoid any major gaffes and – as an article from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhua_News_Agency">the Xinhua News Agency</a> put it – responding to Trump with “fierce words.”</p>
<p>Unlike in 2016, where Clinton was portrayed as anti-Russian, corrupt and elitist, Russian media appeared more willing to characterize the Democratic Party nominee in a positive light. </p>
<p>In fact, Russian coverage expressed surprise over Biden’s debate performance. He didn’t come across as feeble; instead, he was, as the daily newspaper <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommersant">Kommersant</a> wrote, a lively opponent who appeared to be “criticizing, irritating and humiliating” Trump by calling him a “liar, racist and the worst president.” They did praise Trump’s especially aggressive rhetoric. However, our analysis found that Russian media also repeatedly claimed that, unlike 2016, voters today were tiring of his bombast.</p>
<p>While Trump’s post-debate posturing received some positive coverage, Russian media largely lamented his administration’s failure to deliver substantive progress toward normalizing relations between the two countries. They noted the debate neither clarified policies for voters nor for international observers. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363992/original/file-20201016-13-1ie8hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Front pages of Russia's main newspapers featuring pictures of the 2018 summit between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363992/original/file-20201016-13-1ie8hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363992/original/file-20201016-13-1ie8hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363992/original/file-20201016-13-1ie8hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363992/original/file-20201016-13-1ie8hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363992/original/file-20201016-13-1ie8hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363992/original/file-20201016-13-1ie8hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363992/original/file-20201016-13-1ie8hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Russian outlets have been largely supportive of President Trump, but have been critical of his handling of the coronavirus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/photograph-taken-on-july-17-2018-in-moscow-shows-the-front-news-photo/1000432746?adppopup=true">Mladen Antonov/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Iranian media took the strongest anti-Trump stance. Reports routinely pointed out that Trump has had no foreign policy successes, and has only exacerbated relations with the country’s major rivals. According to Iranian media outlets, Trump’s lack of accomplishments has left him with no choice but to rely on insults and personal attacks.</p>
<p>Biden, however, was said to have kept his calm. As <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Alam_News_Network">Al Alam News</a> wrote, he used “more credible responses and attacks than Trump.”</p>
<p>The former vice president, in their view, promised some semblance of normalized diplomatic relations.</p>
<h2>‘Intransigence’ and ‘ignorance’</h2>
<p>The final month of the U.S. presidential race <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/october-surprises-214320">is known for last-minute surprises that can upend the race</a>. This year was no exception, with Trump’s Oct. 2 announcement of his COVID-19 diagnosis quickly shifting media coverage from the debate to Trump’s health.</p>
<p>He received little sympathy from foreign outlets. Across the board, they were quick to note how his personal disregard for public health safety measures symbolized his administration’s failed response to the pandemic.</p>
<p>For example, one Chinese media outlet, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beijing_News">The Beijing News</a>, characterized the diagnosis as “hitting” the president “in the face,” given his previous downplaying of the epidemic. Other reports claimed Trump lacked “care about the epidemic,” including disregard for “protective measures such as wearing a mask.” </p>
<p>Chinese outlets suggested Trump would use the diagnosis to win sympathy from voters, but also noted by being sidelined from holding campaign rallies, he could lose his “self-confessed” ability to attract voters. </p>
<p>Russian media, on the other hand, remained confident that Trump would recover and repeated the <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-10-07/trumps-doctor-president-feels-great-reports-no-coronavirus-symptoms">White House line</a> of Trump’s good health.</p>
<p>At the same time, Russian outlets tended to chastise Trump’s unwillingness to avoid large gatherings, practice social distancing or wear a mask, all of which violated his administration’s basic health guidelines. Likewise, Russian reports criticized Trump’s post-diagnosis behavior – <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-tweets-video-from-hospital-says-covid-19-has-been-an-interesting-journey-93127237543">like tweeting video messages while at the hospital</a> and <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/latest-updates-trump-covid-19-results/2020/10/04/920181116/in-brief-drive-by-trump-waves-to-supporters-outside-of-walter-reed">violating quarantine with his public appearances</a> – as “publicity stunts” that jeopardized the safety of his Secret Service detail and supporters. </p>
<p>Again, Iranian media most directly criticized Trump. Reports characterized Trump as “determined to continue the same approach,” despite his diagnosis, and remain “without a muzzle,” “irresponsibly” continuing to tweet misinformation <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-compares-covid-flu-experts-say-he-s-flat-wrong-n1242258">falsely comparing COVID-19 to the flu</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363988/original/file-20201016-19-1o66pki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An Iranian man reads a copy of the daily newspaper 'Omid Javan' with a picture of Donald Trump on the cover." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363988/original/file-20201016-19-1o66pki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363988/original/file-20201016-19-1o66pki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363988/original/file-20201016-19-1o66pki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363988/original/file-20201016-19-1o66pki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363988/original/file-20201016-19-1o66pki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363988/original/file-20201016-19-1o66pki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363988/original/file-20201016-19-1o66pki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Iranian media outlets have been particularly harsh on the president, with this headline calling him ‘Crazy Trump.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/an-iranian-man-reads-a-copy-of-the-daily-newspaper-omid-news-photo/861188560?adppopup=true">STR/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Coverage centered on Trump’s inability to, as Al Alam put it, show “any sympathy” for the over 200,000 dead Americans. This death toll, the same article noted, was attributed to Trump’s “mismanagement, intransigence, ignorance and stupidity,” highlighted by his cavalier disregard for safety guidelines such as wearing a mask. </p>
<h2>In the bag for Biden?</h2>
<p>Many of the criticisms of the U.S. found in foreign media outlets in our 2016 study appear in this year’s coverage. But since the 2016 election, geopolitics have changed quite a bit – and, for many of these countries, not necessarily for the better. That might best explain their collective ire toward Trump.</p>
<p>During Trump’s first term, Iranians absorbed the U.S.’s <a href="https://www.sipri.org/commentary/expert-comment/2019/us-withdrawal-iran-deal-one-year">unilateral withdrawal</a> from the Iran nuclear deal, the reimposition of sanctions and <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/03/world/iran-threatens-harsh-retaliation-us-airstrike-that-killed-top-general/?p1=Article_Feed_ContentQuery">the assassination of one of its top generals</a>. </p>
<p>The Chinese entered into a trade war with the U.S., while the U.S. government leveled accusations of <a href="https://www.natlawreview.com/article/department-justice-s-national-security-division-chief-addresses-china-s-campaign-to">intellectual property theft</a>, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house-gop-demands-immediate-hearing-on-uighur-genocide-carried-out-by-chinese-communist-party">mass murder</a> and blame for the spread of what Trump has called the “<a href="https://www.voanews.com/2020-usa-votes/trump-i-beat-crazy-horrible-china-virus">China Virus</a>.” </p>
<p>Russians, meanwhile, have seen themselves – fairly or not – bound to Trump’s 2016 election victory and outed as an international provocateur. That Trump <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-putin/putin-says-u-s-russia-relations-are-getting-worse-and-worse-idUSKCN1TE0L7">has not been able to deliver on normalizing U.S. Russian relations</a> despite four years of posturing and political rhetoric has perhaps made Trump more of a political liability than worthwhile ally. Not only has the COVID-19 pandemic <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kyrgyzstan-protests-pandemic-analysis-idUSKBN26T2ML">sparked unrest</a> in Russia’s backyard, but mounting regional instability is also undermining Putin’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/07/world/europe/putin-belarus-kyrgyzstan-caucasus.html">image as a master tactician</a>. </p>
<p>[<em>Get our best science, health and technology stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-best">Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>As a result, these countries’ outlets appear to have shifted attention away from a broad critique of U.S. democracy toward exasperation with Trump’s leadership. </p>
<p>The two, of course, aren’t mutually exclusive. And these countries’ relatively positive characterizations of a potential Biden administration likely won’t last. </p>
<p>But even the country’s supposed adversaries seem to be craving a return to stability and predictability from the Oval Office.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147807/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Hinck receives funding from the US Department of Homeland Security and US Department of Defense. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Utterback receives funding from the US Department of Homeland Security and US Department of Defense.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Skye Cooley receives funding from the US Department of Homeland Security and the US Department of Defense. </span></em></p>In 2016, America’s adversaries seemed to cheer electoral chaos and a withering faith in democracy. Now they seem to be hoping democracy can topple a leader they’ve grown loathe to deal with.Robert Hinck, Assistant Professor, Monmouth CollegeRobert Utterback, Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Monmouth CollegeSkye Cooley, Assistant Professor of Communication, Oklahoma State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1472452020-10-02T13:24:34Z2020-10-02T13:24:34ZSilencing the debate mic won’t stop Trump from short-circuiting the democratic process<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/361221/original/file-20201001-18-1tvtrjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=210%2C11%2C7163%2C3979&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When a debate becomes just a fight.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/fighting-words-royalty-free-image/1195525285">wildpixel/iStock/Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>New rules will mute the microphones of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden for parts of the next presidential debate, but it may not be enough to solve the problems that arose in the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-debate-insults/this-clown-nothing-smart-about-you-un-presidential-insults-fly-in-first-trump-biden-debate-idUSL1N2GR05C">chaotic first presidential debate</a>.</p>
<p>The candidates will still be able to hear each other, potentially interrupting their train of thought – and, as The New York Times reported, anything a candidate says while his own microphone is muted <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/us/politics/trump-biden-muted-debate.html">may still be picked up by the other candidate’s mic</a>.</p>
<p>And in late September, after the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates promised to add “<a href="https://www.debates.org/2020/09/30/cpd-statement-4/">additional structure</a>” to “ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues,” President Donald Trump said he would <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/presidential-debates-trump-suggests-he-wont-allow-rule-changes.html">defy any new rules</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1311731462589292544"}"></div></p>
<p>By promising to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/presidential-debates-trump-suggests-he-wont-allow-rule-changes.html">dominate</a> rather than debate, Trump made clear that he would continue his signature strategy for campaigning and governing: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/23/two-years-trump-has-been-undermining-american-democracy-heres-damage-report/">undermining democratic institutions</a>.</p>
<p>That leaves one big question: Is a debate even possible?</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ui-U394AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">professor of political communication</a> and former college debate coach, I’ve spent 20 years teaching students how to learn from presidential debates. I teach them that functional political debates, like healthy democracies, require participants who respect the process and follow mutually agreed-upon rules. The rules are often mundane – what the time limits are, whether candidates can directly question each other and when rebuttals are allowed – but they make it possible for political opponents to engage one another, answer tough questions and <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/the-first-presidential-debate-was-good.html">give voters a way to evaluate</a> contrasting arguments. </p>
<p>Trump broke the rules, abused the process and treated the notion of democratic debate with disdain. This microphone change may not prevent him from doing so again.</p>
<h2>Debates have a purpose</h2>
<p>Scholars lament that televised presidential debates <a href="https://theconversation.com/presidential-debates-arent-debates-at-all-theyre-joint-press-conferences-125202">don’t follow academic debate rules</a>, but they can serve <a href="https://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup/">important functions for the public</a>. </p>
<p>They demonstrate candidates’ ability to react under pressure, address a broad range of policy questions and connect with voters. The Pew Research Center reports that in many election cycles, large majorities of voters have said the debates <a href="https://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup/">help them choose whom to support</a>.</p>
<p>What happened on Sept. 29 achieved none of that. </p>
<p>Trump launched a 90-minute blitz of outbursts, interruptions and attacks, which was roundly denounced <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/presidential-debate-ben-shapiro-reaction">across the</a> <a href="https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/media-reactions-first-trump-biden-presidential-debate">political spectrum</a>. Moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News repeatedly inserted himself into the barrage of cross-talk, but was unsuccessful in his efforts to get Trump to abide by the rules.</p>
<p>Joe Biden expressed exasperation, using language unprecedented for a presidential debate, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-debate-insults/this-clown-nothing-smart-about-you-un-presidential-insults-fly-in-first-trump-biden-debate-idUSL1N2GR05C">telling</a> Trump to “shut up” and calling him a “clown.” Political scientist Jennifer Piscopo described the scene as one in which both candidates were “<a href="https://19thnews.org/2020/09/trump-biden-first-presidential-debate-toxic-masculinit/">goading each other with performative masculinity</a>.” </p>
<p>The Washington Post’s Jill Filipovic speculated that one reason the 2016 debates didn’t devolve into that level of chaos was that, as a woman, Hillary Clinton would have subjected herself to sexist criticisms <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/09/30/biden-trump-shut-up/">if she had taken the bait</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1311122721682710528"}"></div></p>
<h2>Sabotaging democracy</h2>
<p>Can this be fixed with a simple technological adjustment, like cutting speakers’ mics? If only. </p>
<p>The problem is that Trump didn’t just speak too long or out of turn. He adopted an anti-democratic stance and sabotaged the entire process. Muting his mic wouldn’t force Trump to participate in the debate in good faith. Moreover, it would give him the opportunity to claim that he’s being censored by what he considers a hostile media establishment. </p>
<p>The televised presidential debates were designed to <a href="https://www.lwv.org/league-women-voters-and-candidate-debates-changing-relationship">ensure that American voters could evaluate presidential and vice presidential candidates in a live, unscripted context</a> – one that exposed them to questions from journalists and citizens and enabled them to engage one another on the issues. </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>They were not designed with a saboteur in mind. Trump’s response to these debates is emblematic of his approach to the presidency. He wants to command an audience, not respond to voters. What he values most of all is having the mic to himself.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article originally published Oct. 2, 2020, adding information about specific new rules for the next presidential debate.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147245/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karrin Vasby Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Functional political debates, like healthy democracies, require participants who respect the process and follow mutually agreed-upon rules.Karrin Vasby Anderson, Professor of Communication Studies, Colorado State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1229192020-03-19T12:04:07Z2020-03-19T12:04:07ZHow to make presidential debates serve voters, not candidates<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319966/original/file-20200311-116236-uuog23.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=43%2C0%2C4892%2C3258&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Voters could know more about how each of these men think.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Election-2020-Debate/7bf710297c834634ad4ee94cf9f67fd1/11/0">AP Photo/Patrick Semansky</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/presidential-debates-arent-debates-at-all-theyre-joint-press-conferences-125202">Presidential debates are not debates at all</a>. They provide candidates with opportunities to deliver their own pre-scripted messages, largely unchallenged.</p>
<p>Ideally, presidential debate scholars agree, these events should help voters <a href="https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/feature/democratizing-the-debates/">identify which candidate they agree with</a> most on key issues, and, as other academic debate coaches put it, see how a candidate would “<a href="https://www.thewrap.com/how-debate-coaches-would-fix-the-democratic-presidential-debates/">make decisions, implement policies, and think through complex problems</a>” if elected.</p>
<p>The debates, as currently structured, do achieve the first goal: Voters can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2015.994905">find out which candidate fits</a> with their views. However, the many Democratic presidential primary debates this election cycle have failed to give many a good idea of how any of the candidates would approach hard decisions once in office.</p>
<p>Fortunately, there are better debate formats. <a href="https://as.vanderbilt.edu/communication/people/john-p-koch/">I coach debate at Vanderbilt University</a>, and three new approaches in the field of competitive academic debate offer ideas that could help presidential debates serve multiple purposes – not just one.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319969/original/file-20200311-116232-yrc3r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319969/original/file-20200311-116232-yrc3r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319969/original/file-20200311-116232-yrc3r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319969/original/file-20200311-116232-yrc3r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319969/original/file-20200311-116232-yrc3r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319969/original/file-20200311-116232-yrc3r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319969/original/file-20200311-116232-yrc3r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319969/original/file-20200311-116232-yrc3r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Right now, candidates face journalists – but they could face subject-matter experts instead.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/moderator-and-the-new-york-times-national-editor-marc-lacey-news-photo/1176120053?adppopup=true">Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Face a panel of experts</h2>
<p>Current presidential debates, based on <a href="https://theconversation.com/think-presidential-debates-are-dull-thank-1950s-tv-game-shows-128764">1950s game shows</a>, put candidates side by side on a stage to answer questions from a panel of journalists and respond to each other’s comments. There is little opportunity for deep questioning, which could reveal much more about candidates’ understanding of complex issues like foreign policy, health care and the economy.</p>
<p>This year, the Vanderbilt debate team started competing in the <a href="https://civicdebateconference.org/">Civic Debate Conference</a>, which tests different debate formats. One, called the Schuman Challenge, requires our students to <a href="https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america_en/31693/Schuman%20Challenge">discuss their ideas with experts</a>. The students are given a problem and asked to write a proposal to solve it, and then present and defend it in front of a group of people who know a lot about that issue. This year, for instance, students are exploring how the United States and the European Union should respond to alternative models of government in China.</p>
<p>This is an <a href="https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2019/wm-team-aces-eu-foreign-policy-competition.php">intense process</a> that requires exhaustive research, argument preparation, deep knowledge and clear decisions. Our best students excel at this format – and it seems a useful way to test presidential candidates’ ability to study and prepare, then explain and defend their positions on public issues. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319971/original/file-20200311-116245-16skoc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319971/original/file-20200311-116245-16skoc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319971/original/file-20200311-116245-16skoc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319971/original/file-20200311-116245-16skoc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319971/original/file-20200311-116245-16skoc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319971/original/file-20200311-116245-16skoc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319971/original/file-20200311-116245-16skoc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319971/original/file-20200311-116245-16skoc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Candidates could phone a friend, or an adviser, to show how they would marshal a team to address a particular issue.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/APTOPIX-Election-2020-Joe-Biden/84bf9f74febb4c58b0678025334bcf56/1/0">AP Photo/Mary Altaffer</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Consult with advisers</h2>
<p>Another way to improve current debates would be to include their advisers in the debate process, since presidents often rely on them to make decisions.</p>
<p>At Emory University in 2019, Civic Debate member schools participated in an <a href="https://civicdebateconference.org/One-Person-No-Vote.php">event</a> about improving voting rights in the United States. First, all the students got information from experts at the <a href="https://www.civilandhumanrights.org/">National Center for Civil and Human Rights</a>. Then the schools’ teams devised and presented their solutions. After watching all the presentations, each team modified its ideas to reflect others’ proposals, and each presented a revised plan to the group.</p>
<p>For presidential candidates, the format could be adapted so candidates are given a topic, an opportunity to meet with their advisers, and then time to present their solutions. After hearing each other’s ideas, the candidates could then discuss each other’s plans in an attempt to identify the best course of action. </p>
<p>This would allow voters to see how a candidate would collect information, reflect upon disagreements, modify their own proposals and ultimately make a decision.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319967/original/file-20200311-116250-11dnmp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319967/original/file-20200311-116250-11dnmp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319967/original/file-20200311-116250-11dnmp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319967/original/file-20200311-116250-11dnmp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319967/original/file-20200311-116250-11dnmp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319967/original/file-20200311-116250-11dnmp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=560&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319967/original/file-20200311-116250-11dnmp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=560&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319967/original/file-20200311-116250-11dnmp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=560&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, candidates came together to support a cause.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Election-2020-MLK-Day/a8306c82687940339a34043f26773a7f/51/0">AP Photo/Meg Kinnard</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Work as a team</h2>
<p>A third approach could involve having the candidates work as a team. </p>
<p>Traditionally, academic debate is a team sport, in which each team represents a particular university. However, the Civic Debate Conference has <a href="https://civicdebateconference.org/What-We-Owe.php">combined multiple schools into single teams</a>. The result is that debaters from various schools must find compromise and arrive at policy positions that all of the team’s members are willing – and able – to defend.</p>
<p>The presidency is not a dictatorship, and the American system of government requires compromise. It would be very revealing to team candidates up with each other – either by choice or randomly – to see how they work through their differences, and ultimately find out what they are willing to defend together.</p>
<p>It’s probably too much to try all three of these potential formats at once. But having multiple debate types over time might sustain the public’s interest. Additional formats would reveal more about candidates, helping help voters make their choices not only about whom they agree with, but whose way of thinking they find most appropriate for the presidency.</p>
<p>[<em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122919/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John P. Koch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Three new approaches in the field of competitive academic debate offer ideas that could help presidential debates serve both their public purposes.John P. Koch, Senior Lecturer and Director of Debate, Vanderbilt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1297372020-01-15T05:46:28Z2020-01-15T05:46:28Z3 quotes that defined the first Democratic debate of 2020<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310138/original/file-20200115-151839-surg81.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders shake hands before the debate on Jan. 14.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Election-2020-Debate/b56197b74eda469c8ae4704f6caff838/28/0">AP Photo/Patrick Semansky</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/democratic-debate-lineup.html">Six Democrats</a> qualified for the final debate before the Iowa caucus on Feb. 3. We asked three scholars to watch the Jan. 14 debate, held at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, and pick a quote from one of the candidates to highlight and analyze.</em></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310148/original/file-20200115-151844-1h62ril.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310148/original/file-20200115-151844-1h62ril.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310148/original/file-20200115-151844-1h62ril.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310148/original/file-20200115-151844-1h62ril.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310148/original/file-20200115-151844-1h62ril.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310148/original/file-20200115-151844-1h62ril.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310148/original/file-20200115-151844-1h62ril.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Joe Biden touched on the Iran nuclear deal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/APTOPIX-Election-2020-Debate/1ddbb4d5be9846de9731047635d80120/4/0">AP Photo/Patrick Semansky</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Dennis Jett, Pennsylvania State University</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I was part of that deal to get the nuclear agreement with Iran, bringing together the rest of the world, including some of the folks who aren’t friendly to us. And it was working.” - Joe Biden</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Iran nuclear deal took two years to negotiate and <a href="https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/">runs to over 20,000 words</a>.</p>
<p>Joe Biden no doubt had a part in selling the agreement, as it was one of the <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal">Obama administration’s top foreign policy</a> objectives. The agreement placed strict and verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear program and even Trump, during his first year in office, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/trump-to-announce-he-will-withdraw-us-from-iran-nuclear-deal.html">certified Iran was complying</a> before he came up with <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/key-moments-in-the-unraveling-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal">additional demands</a>. He then <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html">withdrew from the deal</a>.</p>
<p>That move convinced American allies that U.S. leadership had <a href="https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/05/the-trump-effect-in-europe/">become as erratic as it was unreliable</a>. It also removed the incentive for Iran to limit its ability to develop nuclear weapons and relied on sanctions to force Iran to capitulate. </p>
<p>Since the U.S. withdrew, Iran has responded by continuing to develop its nuclear capability, making the time it would need to construct a bomb increasingly shorter. The recent killing <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/08/soleimani-killing-assassination-legitimate-act-war-terror/2831498001/">of senior Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani</a> by U.S. drone strike will only encourage Iran to reconsider the steps it must take to defend itself. That <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/israel-heading-towards-preventive-war-against-iran-98987">may prompt Israel</a> to again contemplate a preemptive strike.</p>
<p>In his speech on Jan. 8, Trump explained his rationale for killing Soleimani – a speech that included <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/factchecking-trumps-iran-address/">several dubious claims</a>. I predict that his effort to force Iran to its knees will have no more success than his attempt to negotiate with North Korea to get them to give up their weapons.</p>
<p>If Trump then resorts to military action against Iran, he will likely find it impossible to convince anyone that his justification for acting is either credible or legitimate.</p>
<p>And if Biden – or any of the others on the stage tonight – become president a year from now, putting the deal back together again will be difficult if not impossible.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310143/original/file-20200115-151848-bfeghd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310143/original/file-20200115-151848-bfeghd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310143/original/file-20200115-151848-bfeghd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310143/original/file-20200115-151848-bfeghd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310143/original/file-20200115-151848-bfeghd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310143/original/file-20200115-151848-bfeghd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310143/original/file-20200115-151848-bfeghd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Elizabeth Warren spoke about the American military presence in the Middle East.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Election-2020-Debate/53372abdc01d4eb7bccd94c66c1abd3b/8/0">AP Photo/Patrick Semansky</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Amy K. Dacey, American University</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>“We should stop asking our military to solve problems that cannot be solved militarily.” - Elizabeth Warren</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The final debate before the Iowa caucus is a challenging one for candidates. The strategic question at hand is: Do they fight with other primary candidates – or deescalate the differences that exist between them, even if small?</p>
<p>While the first six debates focused on domestic policy, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-news-rouhani-says-us-caused-plane-strike-today-over-donald-trump-killing-qassem-soleimani-2020-01-14/">the recent conflict between the U.S. and Iran</a> was at the forefront of voters’ and candidates’ minds on Jan. 15. </p>
<p>This debate shined a light on the candidates’ foreign policy experience, in contrast with the policies of the sitting president. Most recently, Biden has been seen by Democratic primary voters as <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/democrats-trust-biden-sanders-on-foreign-policy-amid-iran-tensions.html">the candidate most trustworthy on foreign policy</a>. </p>
<p>President Donald Trump’s administration has <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-12-03/trump-didnt-shrink-us-military-commitments-abroad-he-expanded-them">expanded U.S. military commitments abroad</a>. Even after declaring <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-cabinet-meeting-15/">“I got elected on bringing our soldiers back home,”</a> <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-12-03/trump-didnt-shrink-us-military-commitments-abroad-he-expanded-them">Trump has kept 174,000</a> active military deployed overseas. </p>
<p>The focus on foreign policy in the early minutes of the debate opened a door for candidates to remind voters that their positions reinforce the Obama administration’s commitment to only send troops into harm’s way when it was necessary and with <a href="https://time.com/4622417/president-obama-armed-forces-speech-transcript/">a strategy and defined goals</a>, while at the same time openly questioning the military decisions of the Trump administration, especially in recent days.</p>
<p>Warren’s comments sent a clear message that diplomacy and other means, such as international alliances and negotiation, are to be considered. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310159/original/file-20200115-151839-13knw7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310159/original/file-20200115-151839-13knw7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310159/original/file-20200115-151839-13knw7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310159/original/file-20200115-151839-13knw7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310159/original/file-20200115-151839-13knw7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310159/original/file-20200115-151839-13knw7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310159/original/file-20200115-151839-13knw7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Amy Klobuchar spoke at the Jan. 14 Democratic presidential primary debate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Election-2020-Debate/2f0e2668275a4c70b030a11543810870/13/0">AP Photo/Patrick Semansky</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Pearl K. Dowe, Oxford College, Emory University</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>“We are not going to have a shortage of MBAs, we are going to have a shortage of plumbers.” - Amy Klobuchar</p>
</blockquote>
<p>During the debate, moderators raised the question about Pete Buttigieg’s opposition to free public college access for the wealthiest 20% in the country. </p>
<p>Klobuchar attempted to pivot the conversation to the economic value of education, saying that there should be an emphasis on filling blue collar jobs that are currently vacant. </p>
<p>This statement echoes a question in today’s society about the value of higher education and who should be able to access it. This <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/opinion/college-useful-cost-jobs.html">public debate</a> has resulted from rising tuition costs, increased student loan debt and stagnation of wages. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/education-pays.htm">Bureau of Labor Statistics data</a> confirms that, in every state, those with college degrees earn more than those without degrees. College graduates average a weekly income of US$1,173, compared to $712 for those with only a high school diploma. A high school diploma no longer offers a career path that can lead to a middle-class life. </p>
<p>Key members of the Democratic voting block – <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2017/12/04/black-women-are-earning-more-college-degrees-but-that-alone-wont-close-race-gaps/">women and people of color</a> – face significant barriers to closing the income and wealth gap with white men. </p>
<p>In my view as <a href="https://app.oxford.emory.edu/WebApps/Directory/index.cfm/view/9635">someone who studies African American political behavior</a>, Klobuchar was correct that the conversation about jobs should be broader. But careers with limited mobility and low wages do not offer an effective avenue to economic prosperity. Her comments did not fully acknowledge why people are willing to go into debt in order to receive education beyond high school. </p>
<p>African Americans often view education not only as an avenue to a career that allows for the potential of upward mobility, but also to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/30/stop-blaming-black-parents-for-underachieving-kids/">a greater sense of freedom for oneself and one’s family</a>. Klobuchar’s comment dismisses this long history of deep commitment to earning a freer life.</p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129737/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>At the Jan. 14 debate, held at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, six candidates clashed on jobs, Iran and more.Dennis Jett, Professor of International Affairs, Penn StateAmy Dacey, Executive Director of the Sine Institute of Policy and Politics, American UniversityPearl Dowe, Acting Professor of Political Science and African American Studies at Oxford College, Emory UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1287642019-12-17T13:55:08Z2019-12-17T13:55:08ZThink presidential debates are dull? Thank 1950s TV game shows<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306683/original/file-20191212-85428-1a33e5n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3716%2C2862&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Host Jack Barry, middle, is flanked by contestants on '21,' a 1950s TV game show.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vivienne_Nearing,_Jack_Barry,_Charles_Van_Doren_NYWTS.jpg">Orlando Fernandez/New York World-Telegram and Sun/Library of Congress/Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Televised political debates <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/2020-democratic-debates-arent-pleasing-anyone/598306/">continue to disappoint viewers and critics</a>. Sometimes they even <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2012/10/how-obamas-debate-strategy-bombed-082037">frustrate the participants</a> themselves. </p>
<p>That’s because, since their inception, nobody has been able to come up with a model that rival candidates would accept, and that would be useful and informative for the viewing public. The only debate arrangement everyone agreed to nearly 60 years ago largely remains in place today – the game show format.</p>
<p>The first TV debates were shaped by federal regulations, an enterprising network executive named Frank Stanton, and a series of negotiations that were hampered by a tight schedule and dueling campaigns. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/19/the-state-of-the-presidential-debate">As far back as 1936</a>, radio broadcasters wanted to air live debates between presidential candidates. But Section 315 of the 1934 Communications Act <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/315">required equal airtime be devoted to every announced candidate</a>, preventing broadcasters from limiting the debate pool. Stanton, president of CBS from 1946 to 1971, regularly proposed debates and often went to Washington to <a href="https://www.jfklibrary.org/sites/default/files/archives/JFKOH/Stanton,%20Frank/JFKOH-FNS-01/JFKOH-FNS-01-TR.pdf">lobby Congress</a> to change the law. In the late 1950s, he found his moment.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZRfPgFMYkmE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An episode of ‘The $64,000 Question’ from 1956.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The rise and fall of quiz shows</h2>
<p>Between 1955 and 1959, America’s prime-time television schedule became dominated by quiz shows. </p>
<p>Programs like “The $64,000 Question,” “Twenty-One” and “Tic-Tac-Dough” delighted audiences and turned contestants and the shows’ hosts into national celebrities. The shows were all pretty similar, designed to showcase intellect while letting viewers at home test their knowledge.</p>
<p>In 1958, though, <a href="https://interviews.televisionacademy.com/interviews/herbert-stempel">some players began to complain</a> that the shows were rigged, saying they were given the correct answers, or instructed to answer incorrectly, to boost suspense and attract viewers.</p>
<p>The revelations shocked the nation, leading to calls for political action and more regulation of television programming. Within the industry, <a href="https://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_lights_in_a_box_speech">critics and journalists called on TV networks</a> to renew investment in public affairs broadcasting.</p>
<p>Stanton seized the moment. He suggested televised political debates could be a way to redeem TV; NBC president Robert Sarnoff and other industry leaders joined him. Their lobbying was enough to get Section 315 suspended, and 1960 proved the perfect moment. </p>
<p>President Eisenhower was finishing his second term, and both Democrats and Republicans would be nominating new candidates. These two new nominees would need to appeal to the <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/kennedy-nixon-debates">broad, TV-watching American public</a> in new ways.</p>
<p>Stanton got both Vice President Richard Nixon – who had been a champion debater at Whittier College – and Senator John F. Kennedy to accept invitations to debate live on television. That’s when the really difficult negotiations began. </p>
<h2>Setting the debate structure</h2>
<p>Stanton’s earliest concept had the <a href="https://www.discoverlbj.org/item/oh-stantonf-19870722-2-01-10">two candidates facing a panel of journalists</a> who would ask questions, but representatives of both candidates were wary of the new idea. The whole format had to be agreed on by the TV networks, the political parties and the candidates themselves. </p>
<p>As communications scholar John W. Self explains, <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/presidential-debate-negotiation-from-1960-to-1988-setting-the-stage-for-prime-time-clashes/oclc/965143793">nobody really called the events “debates”</a> while the arrangements were being hammered out. Instead, they were always officially referred to as a “joint appearance series.” Every detail took a long time to agree on, as the election drew ever closer in the late summer of 1960.</p>
<p>Democratic Sen. Mike Mansfield publicly worried that this opportunity for fruitful exchange might end up as little more than “<a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/presidential-debate-negotiation-from-1960-to-1988-setting-the-stage-for-prime-time-clashes/oclc/965143793">a beauty contest, press conference, or quiz program</a>.” </p>
<p>Sure enough, the <a href="https://www.discoverlbj.org/item/oh-stantonf-19870722-2-01-10">time pressures</a> pushed everyone to agree on an established TV format Americans were familiar with: the quiz show. The required studios were easily available, the production staff already knew what to do, and journalists could easily moderate discussions in which candidates agreed not to directly question or answer each other.</p>
<p>To everyone involved, it seemed the safest way to ensure that each candidate might enhance their own reputation without risking damage to their campaign. </p>
<p>To the audiences, though, the similarity was obvious – and disappointing.</p>
<p>Historian Daniel Boorstin said they reduced “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/16085/the-image-by-daniel-j-boorstin/">great national issues to trivial dimensions</a>.” Scholar Richard Tedlow drew the parallel more sharply, concluding that “<a href="http://doi.org/10.2307/2712542">[t]he debates bore as little relationship to the real work of the presidency</a> as the quiz shows did to intellectuality.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gbrcRKqLSRw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The first Kennedy-Nixon presidential debate in 1960.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Designer’s regret</h2>
<p>Even Stanton eventually realized how his creation stymied real understanding. The best interrogators, he thought, would be the candidates themselves, who would have to understand and counter the weaknesses in each other’s ideas. </p>
<p>“<a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/nny/stantonf/transcripts/stantonf_1_8_361.html">I would have the two candidates for president sit down</a> face to face in front of the camera, and take a single issue and discuss it,” he once explained. “I would have no questions from the press at all.”</p>
<p>He even considered the most obvious objection: What would happen if one of the candidates refused to engage properly, or wouldn’t let the other get a word in edgewise? </p>
<p>“<a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/nny/stantonf/transcripts/stantonf_1_8_362.html">When you become candidates for president of the United States</a>, you don’t misbehave in front of, you know, forty million people,” he explained – perhaps a bit too optimistically. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vJ6MrDO0kgY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The June 26, 2019, Democratic primary presidential debate.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Carried through the years</h2>
<p>Stanton and those early critics saw what TV audiences see decades later: These events are <a href="http://theconversation.com/presidential-debates-arent-debates-at-all-theyre-joint-press-conferences-125202">not debates</a> at all. There’s no informative interchange between the participants, no considered reasoning and very little clarity about what candidates think or propose. </p>
<p>Instead, the quiz master, usually a well-known broadcast journalist, gently interrogates each contestant. The questions can be pointed and specific, but the answers are always soundbites tested on focus groups. The candidates’ <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/donald-trump-hug-philippe-reines-hillary-clinton/index.html">body language is rehearsed</a>, as is quickly changing the subject, ignoring questions or misdirecting the audience’s attention.</p>
<p>Just like on game shows, candidates are not supposed to question or interrupt each other, and specific moments are intended to humanize and personalize the candidates. Even <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-secret-history-of-the-presidential-debate-buzzer/2016/01/26/b2971dda-c2d7-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html">buzzers are sometimes employed</a> to stay on time. The candidates get thanked for playing when the game is over, while the audience considers how and why the game was won – and by whom.</p>
<p>The whole production is tidy, predictable, nonthreatening and occasionally entertaining. That’s precisely why the two dominant political parties, and their candidates, still insist on the format.</p>
<p>[ <em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128764/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael J. Socolow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The only satisfactory debate arrangement everyone agreed to nearly 60 years ago largely remains in place today – the game show format.Michael J. Socolow, Associate Professor, Communication and Journalism, University of MaineLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1274242019-11-21T05:22:50Z2019-11-21T05:22:50ZDemocrats debate health care, farmers and minimum wage: 4 essential reads – and a chart<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302836/original/file-20191121-515-q2aj72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ten Democratic presidential candidates took the stage in Atlanta on Nov. 20.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Election-2020-Debate/45750a8ae79d4098ad73bb4aa11fe13f/24/0">AP Photo/John Bazemore</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The top candidates vying to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020 <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/us/politics/democratic-debate-live.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage">took the stage</a> in Atlanta for their fifth televised debate on Nov. 20.</p>
<p>With 10 participants and only two hours to discuss dozens of complicated issues, viewers may have had a hard time keeping up as candidates <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/31/democratic-debate-results-takeaways-1441786">waded into the weeds</a> of their pet policy proposals.</p>
<p>Fortunately, our scholars – who have written <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/2020-us-presidential-election-38597">dozens of articles on the key issues</a> of the 2020 Democratic primary campaign – have you covered. </p>
<p>Here are four economic issues that came up in the Nov. 20 debate, along with four stories from our archive that provide some context to help you evaluate what the candidates said.</p>
<h2>1. Medicare for … whom?</h2>
<p>Voters, especially Democrats, say health care <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-healthcare-economy-immigration.aspx">is the top issue heading into 2020</a>. So it’s hardly a surprise that the topic <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/15/20914415/democratic-debates-health-care-issues">has dominated</a> the first four debates and was a hot topic in Atlanta. </p>
<p>Several candidates debated “Medicare for all” and how far to go. Mayor Pete Buttigieg pushed his “Medicare for all who want it” proposal, which would offer a government plan while letting people keep their private insurance. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders argued the best way forward is to make everyone sign up for a government-run single-payer system – the main difference between them being how soon to make it happen. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/01/politics/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-financing-plan/index.html">sticking point</a> has been the high price tag. Gerald Friedman, an economist at University of Massachusetts Amherst, has crunched the numbers on several different versions of a single-payer health care system and estimates a full-scale plan could cost as much as US$40 trillion over a decade. </p>
<p>But there’s an easier and cheaper way to get to Medicare for all, he writes: Simply <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-us-could-afford-medicare-for-all-124462">expand the existing Medicare program to everyone</a>. </p>
<p>Medicare’s “limited scope, skimpy benefits and cost-sharing keep costs low,” he writes, yet “it provides meaningful protection against the potentially crippling cost of accident or illness.” </p>
<h2>2. Trade and farmers</h2>
<p>U.S. trade policy has been an important economic topic ever since Trump launched his trade war against China nearly two years ago. It’s also among the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/real_clear_opinion_research/new_poll_shows_health_care_is_voters_top_concern.html">top concerns on voters’ minds</a>.</p>
<p>Soybean farmers in particular <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-costs-factbox/factbox-from-phone-makers-to-farmers-the-toll-of-trumps-trade-wars-idUSKCN1VE00B">have suffered</a> as a result of the trade war. MSNBC moderator Rachel Maddow asked Buttigieg if he’d continue the billions of dollars in farm subsidies the Trump administration has given to soybean and other farmers to offset the pain. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302839/original/file-20191121-496-1micbv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302839/original/file-20191121-496-1micbv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302839/original/file-20191121-496-1micbv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302839/original/file-20191121-496-1micbv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302839/original/file-20191121-496-1micbv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302839/original/file-20191121-496-1micbv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302839/original/file-20191121-496-1micbv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302839/original/file-20191121-496-1micbv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Trump administration has paid billions in aid to farmers struggling under the financial strain of his trade dispute with China.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trade-War-Farm-Aid/65b511e75f934e07a33202155d732ae7/22/0">AP Photo/Dylan Lovan</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The South Bend, Indiana, mayor said he would support farmers but emphasized that the subsidies don’t make up for the costs of the trade war. “I don’t think this president cares one bit about these farmers,” he said. </p>
<p>Ian Sheldon, a professor of agricultural economics who studies international commodity markets at The Ohio State University, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-soybeans-became-chinas-most-powerful-weapon-in-trumps-trade-war-118088">describes how soybeans became China’s biggest weapon</a> in the trade war. </p>
<p>“The importance of China as a market for soybeans has been driven by an explosion in demand for meat as consumers switch from a diet dominated by rice to one where pork, poultry and beef play an important part,” he explains.</p>
<h2>3. Lifting the minimum wage</h2>
<p>Senators Cory Booker and Sanders brought up the need to raise the minimum wage. Critics of doing so argue it hurts small businesses. </p>
<p>But since New York City lifted the minimum wage to $15 per hour nearly a year ago, the restaurant industry in New York City has continued to thrive.</p>
<p>Nicole Hallett, an associate professor of law at the University at Buffalo SUNY who studies the minimum wage, <a href="https://theconversation.com/raising-the-minimum-wage-in-restaurants-could-be-a-win-for-everyone-125036">explains why</a>. </p>
<p>“A pay increase for low-wage workers doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game,” she writes. “In fact, the evidence suggests that everyone can win.”</p>
<h2>4. Life without paid family leave</h2>
<p>Many of the candidates support requiring companies to offer their employees paid family leave. </p>
<p>When the issue came up at the debate, entrepreneur Andrew Yang noted that the U.S. is <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/switzerland-ranked-as-best-country-for-womens-rights-oecd/">one of only two countries</a> that doesn’t mandate paid family leave. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris agreed on the need for a policy but disagreed over how many months to offer – three versus six. </p>
<p>Darby Saxbe, a psychologist at the University of Southern California – Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/paid-family-leave-is-an-investment-in-public-health-not-a-handout-108323">shows just how little parental leave</a> most Americans currently have and explains the significant stress it causes families. </p>
<p>“Like many windows of dynamic developmental change, the transition to parenthood is a time of transformation that can spur growth – but also brings vulnerability,” she writes. </p>
<h2>Chart: Equal pay for women</h2>
<p>Several of the candidates cited statistics about how much women make compared with men. </p>
<p>Michele Gilman of the University of Baltimore <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-women-still-earn-a-lot-less-than-men-109128">ran the numbers for us</a>.</p>
<p><iframe id="h4yVt" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/h4yVt/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives and an updated version of an article <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-economists-guide-to-watching-the-atlanta-2020-presidential-debate-3-essential-reads-127417">originally published on Nov. 20</a>.</em></p>
<p>[ <em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127424/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Learn more about the economic issues that were debated by the Democratic presidential candidates in Atlanta on Nov. 20.Bryan Keogh, Managing EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1219582019-10-02T10:56:47Z2019-10-02T10:56:47ZDemocracy in crisis – unshackle schools from test results to give children the chance to form opinions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293596/original/file-20190923-54759-137vzzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=38%2C44%2C4211%2C2758&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTU2OTI3MTY4MCwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfNjIxNTkyNTgwIiwiayI6InBob3RvLzYyMTU5MjU4MC9odWdlLmpwZyIsIm0iOjEsImQiOiJzaHV0dGVyc3RvY2stbWVkaWEifSwiUmxYRElyL2VsR1V2cDZ2ZmlGSlJUakQ1dzJrIl0%2Fshutterstock_621592580.jpg&pi=33421636&m=621592580&src=np75_V1uCM1w60SrpDscHw-1-1">Shutterstock/Melting Spot</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-global-crisis-of-democracy-11558105463">political headlines globally</a> are anything to go by, it seems democracy is at risk. Totalitarian views are <a href="https://institute.global/insight/renewing-centre/renewing-centre-topics">on the rise</a>. Far-right parties and leaders <a href="https://theconversation.com/debate-the-rise-of-the-global-rejectionist-party-95576">have gained voters in many countries</a>. And decisions are being made by <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-boris-johnsons-prorogation-legal-why-scottish-and-english-judges-dont-agree-and-why-it-matters-123542">law courts</a> or by <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/analysis/2014-15/attack-on-greek-democracy">technical experts</a> from international economic organisations. And people, particularly young people, feel <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0305764X.2017.1337719">they do not have a say</a>. So it’s not surprising then that governments are turning their attention to <a href="https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e0f2801c-184c-11e8-ac73-01aa75ed71a1/language-en">schools as a potential cure</a>. </p>
<p>Promoting democracy has always been one of the tasks of schools within democratic systems. But this demand is now on the rise. Indeed, <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-73963-2_2.pdf">across the globe</a> teachers in schools are expected to engage students as democratic citizens. It’s hoped such lessons about democracy and what it is to be a good citizen will help to combat growing support for <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/sites/erasmusplus/files/library/fact-sheet-post-paris_en.pdf">totalitarian</a> and <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guidance-on-promoting-british-values-in-schools-published">radical views</a>. </p>
<h2>Wanted: democratic education</h2>
<p>In <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0034654319862493">my research</a>, I have examined more than 370 academic articles about democratic education. My analysis shows there is much disagreement, even among academics, as to both what democracy means as well as how to educate children and young people into democratic values. </p>
<p>But even despite these disagreements, most researchers agree on something: when students discuss and evaluate viewpoints on topics such as as <a href="https://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/resources/teaching-controversial-issues">globalisation</a> or <a href="https://www.ase.org.uk/resources/teaching-controversial-issues">evolution</a> not only do they learn more about geography or science but they also discover that their voice matters.</p>
<p>Indeed, when topics such as <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/berj.3331">patriotism</a> or <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F978-1-137-59733-5_29">historical conflicts</a> are presented as ideas to be debated rather than facts to be learnt, students have time to form opinions and democracy benefits.</p>
<p>Schools can also help to promote democracy when students, parents and teachers are involved in making decisions. At some schools <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1746197909353567">in Brazil</a>, for example, members of the school community democratically agree on school rules, curriculum and procedures. But limited time and space for controversy and participatory decisions in schools restricts this process – and this needs to change.</p>
<h2>Teaching to the test</h2>
<p>Part of the problem is that in recent decades, there has been an increasing insistence on standardised tests. Even four year olds in England now <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jul/23/testing-four-year-olds-begins-september-parents-in-dark-schools">sit a test</a> in the first ten weeks of school. Most teachers are against this. But as they want their students to do “well”, they end up <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131880902891479">teaching to the test</a>. As a consequence, students learn there is a single correct answer for everything, including politics and democracy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293602/original/file-20190923-54749-1ahxqug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293602/original/file-20190923-54749-1ahxqug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293602/original/file-20190923-54749-1ahxqug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293602/original/file-20190923-54749-1ahxqug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293602/original/file-20190923-54749-1ahxqug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293602/original/file-20190923-54749-1ahxqug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293602/original/file-20190923-54749-1ahxqug.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Young people need space to discuss and debate topics without worrying about marks or grades.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTU2OTI3MjQ4NCwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfNzc0MTcxMzU4IiwiayI6InBob3RvLzc3NDE3MTM1OC9odWdlLmpwZyIsIm0iOjEsImQiOiJzaHV0dGVyc3RvY2stbWVkaWEifSwiaVExaGVtdXNvaXBBMjFXSTF5bHRHRGs1b01JIl0%2Fshutterstock_774171358.jpg&pi=33421636&m=774171358&src=K5DftEGFwN7kc4oy8MEdMA-1-7">Shutterstock/Monkey Business Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the same time as a move towards standardised tests, policymakers worldwide have also pushed for the <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1477878511409622?casa_token=FTey77pj2IEAAAAA:H7qfs-JL3HrB8iMEHRvvu6qp0d0NM2bIsAD5RhRv4fQgIXMWkdMwLWD9ivcGiD3YDTyFPntmtp0K">constant evaluations</a> of schools themselves. Parents, teachers and students do not discuss school rules, curriculum and procedures that better benefit their community. Instead, they discuss how to respond to <a href="http://file.scirp.org/pdf/CE_2015032414335801.pdf">national and international standards</a> decided upon elsewhere – often by <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/berj.3120?casa_token=AGeW_57AzIMAAAAA:4kDjSvnp9stIJEnVhSUt7Hr0gvBsLzXKvpiyWWGqtltgOFA6d0J0zoUemRsrL6OAF5S0TZ3k3U0ZKg">experts from economic organisations</a>. </p>
<p>And these standards are the same for everybody – <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Meens/publication/304580932_meens_howe_NCLB_and_Its_Wake_Bad_News_for_Democracy/links/577415f208aead7ba06e5f3b/meens-howe-NCLB-and-Its-Wake-Bad-News-for-Democracy.pdf">top-down</a>. Meaning that there is no space, time and possibilities for participatory decision making – mainly because there is a more immediate need to be accountable to institutions and their experts. </p>
<h2>A democratic cure?</h2>
<p>Education is not a universal solver. It cannot be seen as a cure all for society because it is part of society. But schools can also be good places to begin the fights to “save” democracies from going into crisis. </p>
<p>Schools have the potential to educate new generations into democratic values. And they are secure places where children and young people can <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Radical_Education_and_the_Common_School.html?id=IPBrPgAACAAJ">experiment what it is to be be democratic</a>. Schools can also allow children and young people to learn to agree and disagree – and to defend their views and reach solutions to everyday problems. </p>
<p>It’s clear then that if societies seriously want to promote democracy, the solution is not (only) to teach about democracy and about good citizenship. Governments and policymakers need to give schools the freedom, space and time needed for activities outside of tests, exams and evaluations, so children can see, experience and practice democracy for themselves.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121958/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Edda Sant does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When ideas are presented as topics to be debated, rather than as facts to be learnt, students and democracy benefit.Edda Sant, Senior Lecturer in Education Studies, Manchester Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1066812018-11-20T23:28:58Z2018-11-20T23:28:58ZA new debates commission is the electoral reform Canadians need<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246459/original/file-20181120-161621-mh5uy3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Left to right: Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau pose before the start of the French-language leaders' debate in Montreal in September 2015. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Surprise! Electoral reform in Canada is happening after all. </p>
<p>No, that’s not just public relations spin. Electoral reform remains a Liberal broken promise, and has received <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-electoral-reform-wherry-analysis-1.4179928">considerable ink</a>. But the 2019 election will still be different. </p>
<p>This October, the Liberals announced the creation of an <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/news/2018/10/the-leaders-debates-commission.html">Independent Debate Commission</a> to organize leaders’ debates — one in each official language for the next election. The commission will assume the role traditionally occupied by broadcasters, and the intention is to bring more transparency and accountability to the leaders’ debates. </p>
<p>It may not be the electoral reform you were hoping for, but it is one we needed all the same. </p>
<p>Leaders’ debates are a key part of national elections. For decades, millions of Canadians have tuned in to watch party leaders present their ideas, spar with each other, and wait for the “knock-out” line that can change the trajectory of party fortunes.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246462/original/file-20181120-161638-18pgy46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246462/original/file-20181120-161638-18pgy46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246462/original/file-20181120-161638-18pgy46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246462/original/file-20181120-161638-18pgy46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246462/original/file-20181120-161638-18pgy46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246462/original/file-20181120-161638-18pgy46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246462/original/file-20181120-161638-18pgy46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The famous showdown between Liberal John Turner and Conservative Brian Mulroney over free trade in the 1988 federal election campaign is one of Canada’s best-known political debates.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These are events ripe with promises, new policy ideas, hard criticisms of opponents and candid moments. They are at the core of democratic deliberation. But up to this point, Canadians have known very little about how the debates have been organized because the process was opaque.</p>
<p>Prior to the 2015 election, the televised debates were organized by a consortium of broadcasters and the major parties. Their closed-door negotiations determined the format, the debate topics and which party leaders received an invitation to participate. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/most-canadians-want-elizabeth-may-at-leaders-debate-poll-shows/article613119/">Exclusion</a> from the debates, and why, has been a contentious issue for Canadians. </p>
<h2>Preston Manning left out</h2>
<p>Reform Party leader Preston Manning was excluded from the 1988 debates despite running 72 candidates. In 2008, <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/may-calls-out-harper-layton-for-boycott-threats-1.756943">it was alleged</a> that two leaders threatened to boycott the debates if Green party leader Elizabeth May was invited. May was eventually able to participate, but was shut out again in 2011.</p>
<p>Canadians were told this was an “<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-the-tv-consortium-excluded-elizabeth-may/article1391141/">editorial decision</a>” by the consortium. The lack of transparency on these decisions is one thing, but the notion that a party leader could threaten a boycott if they didn’t get their way raises democratic concerns. </p>
<p>The independent commission will address a number of issues, especially around leader participation. Two of three criteria must be met for participation in the 2019 debates. A party must:</p>
<p><strong>–</strong> Have a sitting MP at the time the election is called.</p>
<p><strong>–</strong> Intend to run candidates in at least 90 per cent of ridings.</p>
<p><strong>–</strong> Obtain four per cent of the vote in a previous election or have a legitimate chance to win seats in the upcoming election, as determined by the commission. </p>
<p>Under these terms, May’s participation would have been secure in 2008. </p>
<p>It could also provide an opportunity for Maxime Bernier, the leader of Canada’s <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/4449706/maxime-bernier-peoples-party-launch/">newest party</a>, to present his platform to voters.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-i-learned-at-a-peoples-party-of-canada-rally-107051">What I learned at a People's Party of Canada rally</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Does the last criterion, where the commissioner determines whether a party has a “legitimate chance to win seats,” give the commission too much discretion? Maybe. </p>
<p>But the Canadian party system is not, and never has been, static. Parties come and go, and there needs to be a way for the leader of a new party who has caught the imagination of Canadians to participate in the debate. </p>
<p>We also believe the criteria are enough to prevent fringe parties from flooding the debate stage. </p>
<h2>A more transparent process</h2>
<p>With an impartial debate commissioner overseeing the organization of the debates (the <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-tap-former-gg-to-be-new-arms-length-leaders-debates-commissioner-1.4155389">nominee is former Gov. Gen. David Johnston</a>), the marquee event of the election campaign is positioned to become far more transparent and accountable to Canadians. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246467/original/file-20181120-161624-9kjca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246467/original/file-20181120-161624-9kjca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246467/original/file-20181120-161624-9kjca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246467/original/file-20181120-161624-9kjca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246467/original/file-20181120-161624-9kjca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246467/original/file-20181120-161624-9kjca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246467/original/file-20181120-161624-9kjca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246467/original/file-20181120-161624-9kjca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">David Johnston appears before a Commons committee reviewing his nomination as elections debates commissioner on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For what it’s worth, the government has also heeded the advice of the media organizations that have been involved in the process in the past. There is wide recognition that the debates are a major television event; professionals will be hired <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/news/2018/10/government-of-canada-announces-the-creation-of-an-independent-leaders-debates-commission0.html">to produce</a> a high-quality broadcast. </p>
<p>Canadians shouldn’t fear grainy footage and fern plant props simply because an independent commission has organizational control over the debates. The debate will be for the couch surfers and the cord cutters alike, airing on a variety of platforms.</p>
<p>The establishment of this commission has been quite extensive, involving an <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/services/reports/online-consultation-political-party-leaders-debates.html">online consultation</a>, <a href="http://irpp.org/research-studies/creating-independent-commission-federal-leaders-debates/">five regional roundtables</a> with experts and stakeholders (one of which we participated in) and an all-party parliamentary committee that <a href="https://ipolitics.ca/article/debate-debates-mps-study-new-models-election-debates/">held hearings</a> and <a href="https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/PROC/report-55/">issued a comprehensive report</a>. </p>
<h2>There will be hiccups</h2>
<p>Does this mean the 2019 debates will be perfect? Probably not. We expect hiccups in terms of process and production. Parties are not compelled to participate, and this could be problematic, but we doubt major party leaders will opt out of the commission-sponsored debates. </p>
<p>Other organizations can still choose to produce their own debates, like the <a href="https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Debates/Federal-Election-Debate">Munk Centre</a> did in 2015.</p>
<p>The government is going slowly, hoping to get this right. After the election, the commissioner will report to Parliament the good, the bad and the ugly of the debates and provide recommendations that would inform the potential creation of a permanent debate commission. </p>
<p>Canadians should not only watch, but keep watch over, the 2019 debates. The leaders’ showdowns should be “the peoples’ debates,” and the creation of the debate commission goes a long way to getting us there.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106681/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tamara A. Small receives funding from SSHRC and Fulbright Canada. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna Lennox Esselment does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The creation of a new debate commission in Canada should ensure televised showdowns between party leaders amid federal election campaigns are transparent and a boon to democracy.Tamara A. Small, Associate Professor, University of GuelphAnna Lennox Esselment, Associate professor, University of WaterlooLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1057242018-10-30T10:44:52Z2018-10-30T10:44:52Z7 ways to teach civil discourse to students<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242561/original/file-20181026-7056-1u2teli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lessons in civil discourse can start in the classroom.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/high-school-students-taking-part-group-199091393?src=CReX_IZ5RtOeAviHeTfpDg-1-5">Monkey Business Images/www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If young people are to engage in democracy and society, young people need to learn how to respectfully disagree. Yet, educators often find it <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/04/the-case-for-contentious-classrooms/524268/">challenging</a> to lead discussions on contentious issues.</p>
<p>Based on my experience as a <a href="https://www.tcpress.com/teachers-as-allies-9780807758861">middle school social studies educator</a>, I’ve discovered that there are ways teachers and others who work with young people can show them how to deal effectively and respectfully with controversial topics – as well as what controversial topics to take up. Though the list of seven ideas I have created below were designed with educators in mind, they are applicable beyond the classroom.</p>
<h2>1. Avoid personal attacks</h2>
<p>In my former classroom, we had a mantra: “We address the ideas, we don’t attack the person.” When a person feels attacked, they stop listening. </p>
<p>Collectively determine what respect looks and feels like within these types of discussions. For example, a student may raise their voice as they passionately discuss a topic, but that can be perceived as yelling. Have a conversation on students prior to discussion on tone, style and how to engage in a topic when it becomes heated.</p>
<p>The educator’s role as a facilitator is to ensure that students maintain respect for their peers as they passionately express themselves. Making this investment will pay off tremendously for any discussion you have, whether in a classroom or another venue. If young people don’t feel like their viewpoints will be heard and respected, they will likely not speak up. </p>
<h2>2. Try easy topics first</h2>
<p>Before you dive into a more contentious topic, practice the skills of debate and disagreement with a topic such as school uniforms or cellphone use in classrooms. </p>
<p>A critical element of disagreement must also be empathy. Lived experiences often shape beliefs. Allow young people to share their experiences and their rationale. You may not agree, but you can be sensitive and try to understand their perspective. Remind students to seek to understand without focusing on being right.</p>
<h2>3. Introduce familiar as well as new topics</h2>
<p>To engage students, select social issues that young people are passionate about. This allows them to utilize their own experiences and knowledge as a frame of reference. It’s important that you truly know and ask your students what they’re interested in. Do not make assumptions. At the same time, recognize that there are topics or issues students may not aware of such as racism, global warming, indigenous and LGBTQ struggles for justice, and that this can be an opportunity to introduce them to narratives outside of their lived experiences or interests.</p>
<p>Be mindful when discussing issues that are connected to young people’s lived experience. Understand that certain topics can evoke strong emotions.</p>
<h2>4. Keep discussions structured</h2>
<p>Effective discussions are structured, whether it is a formal debate or <a href="https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/teaching-strategies/socratic-seminar">Socratic seminar</a> where students facilitate their own learning through group discussion rooted in shared texts or sources. No matter the format, establish and communicate clear rules. This will make it easier for you as a facilitator to enforce the rules of engagement and respect.</p>
<h2>5. Have students prepare</h2>
<p>Students should be prepared for the discussion, which means they should have read, viewed and researched multiple sources on the topic. It’s important to emphasize that students understand the topic from various viewpoints. Allowing time for students to prepare will ensure that all students will be able to contribute and engage in the discussion.</p>
<h2>6. Take politics head on</h2>
<p>Election season provides an array of topics to analyze, which will provide lots of material to inform student opinions for the discussion. With the midterms, students can discuss and evaluate candidate platforms as they relate to various social issues and their proposals for change. Ballot measures and amendments such as abortion in West Virginia, transgender rights in Massachusetts, and voting rights in Florida are vital to evaluate as well. Have students read and question the ballot. There are many social issues embedded within ballot measures and examining them prepares students to be informed voters when they are a little older. The midterms can serve as a springboard, but you can continue having these discussions throughout the school year.</p>
<h2>7. Examine social movements</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242575/original/file-20181027-7047-l7h6ki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242575/original/file-20181027-7047-l7h6ki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242575/original/file-20181027-7047-l7h6ki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242575/original/file-20181027-7047-l7h6ki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242575/original/file-20181027-7047-l7h6ki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242575/original/file-20181027-7047-l7h6ki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242575/original/file-20181027-7047-l7h6ki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242575/original/file-20181027-7047-l7h6ki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A police officer leads an arrested National Woman’s Party protester away from a woman’s suffrage bonfire demonstration at the White House in 1918.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/policeman-leads-arrested-national-womans-party-242816698?src=o5qViRmtllJyxR76nZSR5w-1-1">Everett Historical/www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The complexities of social movements such as <a href="https://www.tolerance.org/classroom-resources/tolerance-lessons/womens-suffrage">women’s suffrage</a> and <a href="https://www.teachingforchange.org/books/our-publications/putting-the-movement-back-into-civil-rights-teaching">civil rights</a> are not highlighted enough in middle school and high school curricula. There is usually a focus on leaders and not the long-term collective actions of individuals. </p>
<p>Examining historical and contemporary social movements like pro-choice and pro-life, Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter, and the LGBTQ movement, provides fertile ground for diverse individual and collective perspectives of an issue. Students can analyze the websites, news articles of social movements, or engage in a <a href="https://www.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=006121">pro/con exercise</a> to grapple with perspectives of a social issue. Questions can be posed to students such as: “Why are people organizing?” or “How does each group see the issue differently?” You could facilitate writing projects to legislators and activists or design a research project where students investigate the purpose, perspective and civic actions of a social movement. A lot of insight can be gleaned from social movements that can enhance discussions. More importantly, young people can find ways to engage in civic action themselves beyond the classroom.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105724/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tiffany Mitchell Patterson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A former middle school teacher offers a series of tips on how educators can teach young people to engage in more civil discourse.Tiffany Mitchell Patterson, Assistant Professor of Secondary Social Studies, West Virginia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/672122016-10-18T20:53:56Z2016-10-18T20:53:56ZFour female scholars suggest questions for the final presidential debate<p><em>Editor’s note: The final debate of the 2016 presidential election campaign will take place on Oct. 19. We asked four of our contributors to suggest questions they’d like to hear addressed by candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.</em></p>
<h2>Question 1: Discrimination against Muslims</h2>
<blockquote>
<p><em>What will you do to address unfair discrimination against Muslims and other minorities and to ensure that we create an inclusive climate for all of our citizens?</em> <strong>– suggested by Michele Gelfand, University of Maryland, College Park</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Researchers at the University of Maryland asked hundreds of Muslims about their experiences as religious and cultural minorities in this country and their views on extremist causes. <a href="http://gelfand.umd.edu/papers/BSP_2_Lyons_2p%20(002).pdf">The findings</a> were clear: The vast majority of Muslims in this country do not hold radical views and they want to be integrated into American culture, echoing <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism">previous research</a>. But when the few who are culturally homeless – out of place in their culture of origin and struggling to fit in the U.S. – are discriminated against, they are made to feel like they do not belong here. </p>
<p>Extremists, in turn, capitalize on these vulnerabilities, and open their arms to them to give them a sense of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24128318">certainty and purpose</a>. Quite clearly, our results suggest that cultivating anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic sentiment is deeply counterproductive. Mr. Trump, some might say that your rhetoric during this election could fuel even more anti-Muslim sentiment against innocent people in this country, and in effect, is contributing to the very problem we’re trying to solve. How would you respond to this? </p>
<h2>Question 2: Ending police violence</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>_If you were elected president, what specific policies would you implement to end police violence in black communities? – <strong>suggested by Keisha N. Blain, University of Iowa</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The systemic problem of police violence in black communities is one of the most pressing issues of our time. The list of black people killed at the hands of the police grows daily.</p>
<p>Today, as Isabel Wilkerson has reported, black Americans die at the hands of police at a rate that is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/mike-brown-shooting-jim-crow-lynchings-in-common">almost equivalent</a> to the number of documented lynchings during the early 20th century. This year alone, almost <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database">200 black people have been killed by police</a>. </p>
<p>This issue has also drawn international attention. The Bahamas <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/09/the-bahamas-travel-advisory-for-the-u-s-use-extreme-caution-around-the-police/">recently cautioned its citizens</a> – 90 percent of whom are black – to “use extreme caution around police” when traveling to the United States. A <a href="http://www.ushrnetwork.org/our-work/project/un-working-group-experts-people-african-descent-visit">U.N. working group of experts</a> have since identified police violence as one of the most significant problems facing black people in the United States. Significantly, they urged the U.S. government to offer tangible solutions and immediate policy changes to protect its black citizens. As the next president of the United States, how would you heed this call?</p>
<h2>Question 3: Protecting police</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>_If you are elected president, how would you protect the lives of police officers from those who target them for violence? – <strong>suggested by Carol Swain, Vanderbilt University</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>We hear on almost on a daily basis of violent attacks against police officers. Many of them seem to be increasingly reluctant to defend themselves for fear of a backlash. As a consequence, there was recently a situation in Chicago where <a href="http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Video-Released-After-Brutal-Beating-of-Chicago-Police-Officer-397152341.html">a female officer was beaten unconscious</a> by a man high on PCP. She was afraid to draw her gun as her training would have mandated. What are your ideas for keeping police safe as they do their jobs in our communities?</p>
<h2>Question 4: Free and fair elections</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>_Please discuss your ideas to promote free and fair elections and high voter turnout. What do you think about voter identification laws? Will you consider a judicial candidate’s views on voting rights when considering jurists for federal courts, including the Supreme Court? How would you suggest Congress revise the Voting Rights Act in light of Shelby County v. Holder? – <strong>suggested by Andra Gillespie, Emory University</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the last few weeks, Donald Trump has increasingly articulated his concern that the election will be rigged against him. It is a message that seems to resonate with those attending his stump speeches and a message that key surrogates, like Rudolph Giuliani, articulated on the Sunday morning talk shows this past weekend. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6fegj0lWCTw?wmode=transparent&start=414" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Giuliani speaks to CNN.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Public opinion polls show that a sizable minority of voters are concerned about election rigging. A recent Politico/Morning Consult <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2016/10/17/trump-support-slides-vote-rigging-rhetoric-takes-hold/">poll</a> found that in general, 41 percent of Republican voters (compared to 30 percent of all registered voters surveyed) were “not too confident” or “not at all confident” that votes would be counted accurately in the upcoming election. When asked specifically about their own votes, 17 percent of Republican voters (compared to 9 percent of all registered voters) expressed a similar anxiety about whether their personal votes would be adequately counted.</p>
<p>In light of this concern – and concerns that Trump may be fanning the flames of this suspicion <a href="http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/voter-fraud-perceptions-political-spin">unnecessarily</a> – it is important for the candidates to talk about their views of voting rights issues broadly. </p>
<p>The answers to these questions would be particularly illuminating in a cycle where racial issues have reemerged as prominent issues. In the wake of controversial police shootings of blacks, we have been primed to think about civil rights issues in the context of policing reform. However, voting rights are important and hotly contested as well. The candidates’ perspectives on voting rights could provide insight into how they conceive of civil rights issues broadly and provide a window into the candidate’s priorities.</p>
<p>Finally, this question would encourage candidates to articulate their election protection plans. How do they define election protection, and how do they propose to monitor local elections to ensure fairness?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67212/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michele Gelfand receives funding from the U.S. Airforce, FBI, and NSF.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andra Gillespie worked in the 2004 election cycle for a Democratic pollster. Her research has been funded in the past by NSF and the Ford Foundation. She currently directs an institute funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carol Swain is a registered Republican. She has also received funding from the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Keisha N. Blain does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Do you feel as if the moderators keep asking the same questions of the presidential candidates? Our panel has some fresh ideas.Michele Gelfand, Professor and Distinguished University Scholar Teacher, University of MarylandAndra Gillespie, Associate Professor, Political Science, Emory UniversityCarol Swain, Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt UniversityKeisha N. Blain, Assistant Professor of History, University of IowaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/668102016-10-12T02:22:39Z2016-10-12T02:22:39ZDonald Trump and the dangerous rhetoric of portraying people as objects<p>In Donald Trump’s 2005 hot mic conversation with entertainment reporter Billy Bush, he confessed to kissing women and grabbing their genitals without their consent.</p>
<p>I’ve previously <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-rhetorical-brilliance-of-trump-the-demagogue-51984">noted</a> how Trump, on the campaign trail, will often use the rhetorical strategy of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(Marxism)">reification</a> (which comes from the Latin word for thing, res, and in this context means “to thingify”) as a way to trivialize the humanity, dignity, needs or opinions of those with whom he disagrees. </p>
<p>As the tape shows, he clearly talks this way in private, too. In a campaign that has epitomized the danger of this rhetoric, women are merely the latest to fall victim to this sort of “thingification.” </p>
<h2>Silencing opponents</h2>
<p>The history of American political discourse is riddled with the “thingification” of people. We have traditionally treated women, workers, immigrants and people with disabilities as less than human, as objects rather than as people. Doing so enables those with power and privilege to retain their status, since there’s the general understanding that people should be privileged over objects. </p>
<p>In other words, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=hfgjuBKSdf8C&pg=PA10&dq=you+the+people&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT4KWEtNPPAhXHQyYKHZ21C00Q6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q&f=false">who counts as people</a> has always been political, so this sort of rhetoric is nothing new. Consider how Americans treated slaves as objects – <a href="http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5386&context=faculty_scholarship">as property to be bought and sold</a> – rather than as human beings. Slaveholders wouldn’t have been able to own people if we had recognized that slaves were, in fact, people, rather than things.</p>
<p>We even see the “thingification” of enemies in Thomas Jefferson’s <a href="https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/first-inaugural-address-0">First Inaugural Address</a>. Much like our current election, the election of 1800 was nasty. <a href="http://www.tamupress.com/product/Jeffersons-Call-for-Nationhood,26.aspx">In the speech</a>, Jefferson attempted to unify the nation, but he also sought to render his critics as objects, as “monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.” </p>
<p>In other words, he hoped to cast his Federalist enemies as silent monuments, relegated to history. </p>
<p>Jefferson’s belief in Enlightenment rationality meant that he thought even those who held differing opinions from him ought to be <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/world/americas/united-states-democracy-clinton-trump.html">tolerated</a>.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, a silent monument can neither criticize nor consent.</p>
<h2>Defending the indefensible</h2>
<p>Fast forward 200 years, and we don’t have a founding father attempting to unite a bitterly divided nation but Donald Trump being recorded bragging about his power over women.</p>
<p>“I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait,” Trump sneered on the tape. “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” Trump then looked out of the bus window at actress Arianne Zucker and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html">said</a>, “Oh, it looks good.”</p>
<p>“It,” of course, is a thing, not a person. A thing that he might kiss or grab, even without its <a href="https://www.rainn.org/articles/what-is-consent">consent</a>. A thing can’t give its consent, after all. The comments on the tape suggest that he might, at times, not wait for any at all.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WhsSzIS84ks?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The 2005 Access Hollywood video leaked to the Washington Post.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When Anderson Cooper asked Trump about the comments about women at the second presidential debate, Trump’s ensuing <a href="http://www.uky.edu/%7Eaddesa01/documents/Ware.pdf">apologia</a> – a speech of self-defense – was riddled with rhetorical devices meant to minimize the seriousness of his “thingifying” women. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/transcript-second-debate.html">He responded</a> that he had “great respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women than I do… But I have tremendous respect for women… And women have respect for me.”</p>
<p>If you look at Trump’s words, it’s clear he hoped he could persuade the audience merely by repeating positive terms about women. Meanwhile, the core argument of his defense was simple: Present his remarks as innocuous. To do so he used a combination of <a href="http://changingminds.org/techniques/conversation/excusing/denial.htm">denial</a> (“I didn’t say that [I sexually assaulted women] at all”); <a href="http://changingminds.org/techniques/conversation/excusing/bolstering.htm">bolstering</a>, a strategy speakers use to associate themselves with something or someone that the audience views positively (“I respect women and women respect me”); <a href="http://changingminds.org/techniques/conversation/excusing/differentiation.htm">differentiation</a>, which speakers use to reframe what the audience already understands (It was just “locker room talk”); and <a href="http://changingminds.org/techniques/conversation/excusing/transcendence.htm">transcendence</a>, or arguing that the issue isn’t really that big of a deal (We need to “get on to much more important things and much bigger things”). </p>
<h2>When everyone’s a ‘thing,’ who’s left?</h2>
<p>From a rhetorical standpoint, Trump’s self-defense was a textbook example of apologia, but it wasn’t convincing. </p>
<p>His denial that he had admitted to sexually assaulting women would ring false to people who had heard him on the tape, the repetition of his respect for women is disproved by his own words on the tape, while the attempt to reframe his reification as “locker room talk” <a href="http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/17765868/athletes-respond-donald-trump-locker-room-talk-defense-taped-comments">has been rejected</a> by folks who actually talk in locker rooms. Meanwhile, his attempt to minimize what he said about women and refocus the nation’s attention on his campaign seems only to reaffirm that he views women as trivial. </p>
<p>He could have perhaps been more convincing if he hadn’t resorted to reification in so many other contexts. As Hillary Clinton <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/transcript-second-debate.html">pointed out in the second presidential debate</a>, “…it’s not only women, and it’s not only this video … he has also targeted immigrants, African-Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities, POWs, Muslims and so many others.” </p>
<p>The lens of reification can help us to understand what happened between the Gold Star Khan family and Trump at the Democratic National Convention in July. Khizr and Ghazala Khan <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/elections/khizr-humayun-khan-speech.html">appeared</a> at the DNC and declared that “Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims.” They asked Trump to stop treating them as objects and to recognize them as people – specifically as Muslims and as American patriots. <a href="https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trumps-response-khans-depicted-them-100644157.html">He refused</a>, instead characterizing them as irrational aggressors. </p>
<p>“I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention,” <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/759743648573435905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">he tweeted</a>. “Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!” To Trump, Khan’s speech at the DNC was a vicious attack. Khan, therefore, could not be a loyal and patriotic American Muslim, as he claimed, but rather – as Trump has argued – all Muslims are aggressors. </p>
<p>The problem for Trump’s targets and opponents, of course, is that the rhetoric of reification allows Trump to deny legitimate criticism. Because objects can neither consent nor criticize, the use of reification can be seen as an expression of power. </p>
<p>“I am running against the Washington insiders, just like I did in the Republican Primaries,” <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/762981606755856384">he tweeted during the summer</a>. “These are the people that have made U.S. a mess!” </p>
<p>Washington insiders are people “that” have made the nation a mess, not “who.” </p>
<p>Even as Trump acknowledges his enemies’ personhood, he also negates it. Trump is a person and his enemies are objects. Just as the “thingification” of women denies them the power to consent to what happens to their bodies, when Trump “thingifies” his critics he denies them the ability to speak and rebut his accusations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66810/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Mercieca does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An expert in political rhetoric singles out Trump’s repeated use of reification – the tendency to treat people as things – and the role it’s played in his tortured response to the leaked tape.Jennifer Mercieca, Associate Professor of Communication and Director of the Aggie Agora, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/667272016-10-10T05:24:22Z2016-10-10T05:24:22ZTrump vs. Clinton: Three key moments from the second debate<p><em>Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton took the debate stage Sunday evening. We asked three scholars from the Washington University in St. Louis, where the debate was held, to pick a key quote from the evening and tell us why it was important.</em></p>
<h2>Rebecca Wanzo</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>“This was locker room talk.” - Trump</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Donald Trump defended the content of a video leaked from Access Hollywood by saying that his discussion of grabbing and kissing women without their consent is part of an everyday culture of masculinity. Trump reinforced that in the debate, saying that the candidates needed to talk about “more important” issues. </p>
<p>Is it typical for men to brag and joke about sexually assaulting women? </p>
<p>Some <a href="http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vio.2014.0022">studies</a> suggest that a troubling <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS2214-109X%2813%2970069-X/abstract">number</a> of men would rape women if they would not be punished. Masculinity scholar Michael Kimmel has written eloquently about how many boys are socialized into “<a href="https://www.harpercollins.com/9780060831356/guyland">guyland</a>,” which is a “privileged sense that you are special, that the world is there for you to take.” This is the kind of research that supports the claim that a “rape culture” exists. </p>
<p>If we take this scholarship seriously, then Trump may be correct in his statement that we live in a culture where men frequently joke about having, and attempting, sexual contact with women without their consent. Trump has never been convicted of sexual assault, but he has been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html">accused</a> of sexual harassment and violence more than once. However, he stated in the debate that he has never attempted to have sexual contact with a woman absent her consent, drawing a line between action and speech.</p>
<p>Even if we choose to believe that the accusations against him, or his own claims about what he has done, are false, we are still left with the question of whether or not the “locker room” defense is a good one. His defense depends on a consistent rhetorical feature of his campaign – attacking “politically correct” speech and embracing racist and sexist speech as evidence of his truth-telling.</p>
<p>In Trump’s campaign, his sexist language has often been excused as part of what men do. Perhaps this tape hit a nerve because it supports what is still a contentious claim to many U.S. citizens bothered by “political correctness” – that how you see and talk about people inevitably has a relationship to what you do to them.</p>
<p><em>Rebecca Wanzo is author of “<a href="http://www.sunypress.edu/p-4915-the-suffering-will-not-be-telev.aspx">The Suffering Will Not Be Televised</a>.”</em></p>
<h2>Peter Kastor</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>“I’m sorry I have to keep saying this, but he lives in an alternative reality.” –Clinton</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Clinton said these words in an effort to criticize Trump. But for all the words that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton said tonight, more striking are two words they hardly said at all: Democrat and Republican. That near silence constitutes a striking break from previous debates, and a telling reminder of what makes this campaign so unusual.</p>
<p>The debate was highly personal, with both candidates heaping accusations on each other as individuals. But tonight, Trump and Clinton made clear that each of their candidacies is the logical result of democratizing the nominating process and weakening the importance of the political parties.</p>
<p>As a historian of the <a href="https://networks.h-net.org/node/7805/reviews/8508/sacher-kastor-nations-crucible-louisiana-purchase-and-creation-america">early American republic</a>, I study and teach about the presidency over its long history. For much of U.S. history, party leaders selected their nominees. This system came into being in the 1820s and 1830s before dying a slow death in mid-20th century and only truly <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/reformingthepresidentialnominationprocess_chapter.pdf">coming to an end</a> in the 1970s.</p>
<p>The system was supposed to be democratic. It replaced the caucus system through which members of Congress, meeting in isolation in Washington, selected nominees in the first quarter of the 19th century. But in the 20th century, the longstanding traditions of party nomination disintegrated in the face of criticisms that it blocked out party members. Critics charged that nominees were chosen in “smoke-filled rooms,” the products of corrupt and secretive deal-making.</p>
<p>Trump secured the nomination by bypassing the leadership of his party. In sharp contrast, Hillary Clinton pursued the presidency by building her strength within the Democratic Party. </p>
<p>But, when it came time for the two candidates to debate each other, they turned to a highly personal politics. Parties didn’t matter, only individuals. In an era when Americans are increasingly critical of the two major parties, this debate, for its strange moments, makes perfect sense. </p>
<p><em>Peter Kastor is author of “William Clark’s World: Describing America in an Age of Unknowns.”</em></p>
<h2>Jeffrey Q. McCune</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>“Hillary is constantly talking about the inner cities of our country, which are a disaster. Education-wise. Job-wise. Safety-wise. In every way possible, I’m going to help the African-Americans, help the Latinos, Hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.” –Trump</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Donald Trump has repeated this message across the country, in debates and political rallies. I believe this rhetoric denies the beauty and dynamic culture of “the African-American” and “the Latinos” across the nation. </p>
<p>Most importantly, it positions racial minorities at the center of the landscape of the inner city, intentionally excluding the role of white people and large corporations in <a href="http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/247816/evicted-by-matthew-desmond/9780553447439/">shifting</a> the environmental and cultural dynamics of communities of color.</p>
<p>Why does Donald Trump describe the inner city only as disastrous? Whom does he blame for creating this “disaster?” And, most importantly, what does fixing the inner city look like for Trump?</p>
<p>Sociologists from <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo15340705.html">Mary Patillo</a> to <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo15309863.html">Laurence Ralph</a> have long shown that the realities of crime and poverty in inner cities are a result of systemic and political decay. What is striking about Trump’s rhetoric is that he pitches the idea of inner-city decay as something he alone can fix, without any clear indicator of an intimate relationship with said communities. The inner city he continues to imagine in his rhetoric contains the Latina/os, African-Americans and women who, I believe, may take issue with his proposal to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, his bragging of sexual assault and his claims of minorities as always suffering.</p>
<p>Trump’s inability to discuss minority communities beyond despair and decay is evidence of how he imagines black and brown life in America. This treatment of difference, combined with his rhetoric and treatment of women, makes his vow to be a “president for all people” a hard sale.</p>
<p><em>Jeffrey Q. McCune, Jr. is author of “Sexual Discretion: Black Masculinity and the Politics of Passing.” He is also collecting oral histories of Ferguson for “The Divided City,” an urban humanities initiative.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66727/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scholars from the Washington University in St. Louis react to the second presidential debate.Jeffrey Q. McCune Jr., Associate Professor of Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies, Washington University in St. LouisPeter Kastor, Professor of History & American Culture Studies, Washington University in St. LouisRebecca Wanzo, Associate Professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, Washington University in St. LouisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/665502016-10-05T04:07:01Z2016-10-05T04:07:01ZKaine vs. Pence: Two key moments from the debate<p><em>Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence took the debate stage Tuesday evening. As America was getting acquainted with the vice presidential candidates, we asked two scholars to pick a key quote from the evening and tell us why it was important.</em></p>
<h2>Justin Buchler, Case Western Reserve University</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>“I tried to stand for the ancient principle of the sanctity of life. I am also very pleased that Indiana became the most-adoption state. But what I can’t understand is Hillary Clinton – how she can support a process like partial-birth abortion.” – Mike Pence, Republican candidate for vice president</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Donald Trump selected Mike Pence as his running mate, in large part, because Trump needed to reassure Republicans about his willingness to hold to conservative social positions, given his past embrace of liberal positions on issues <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914">like abortion</a>. </p>
<p>Pence, unlike Trump, has always been a conservative hardliner, particularly on issues like abortion. The challenge that this creates is that most voters don’t share his views. Consider the following data from the 2012 <a href="http://www.electionstudies.org/">American National Election Studies survey</a>. While 45.7 percent of respondents said that women should always be able to attain an abortion as a matter of personal choice, only 11.5 percent said that abortion should never be permitted. </p>
<p>Trump’s need to reassure conservatives with a selection like Pence has created a different electoral challenge by hewing his campaign to the most extreme end of the abortion spectrum. </p>
<p>Pence handled the issue by using a simple tool recognizable from political scientist E.E. Schattschneider’s <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Semisovereign_People.html?id=JPzyJyg3_tUC">“The Semisovereign People</a>.” </p>
<p>Political conflicts can be defined by “lines of cleavage,” Schattschneider wrote. If you want to win, draw the line of cleavage in a place that is beneficial to you, by placing as many people as possible on your side. If you oppose abortion for rape victims (<a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/170f8e42570b4b7abfeec76cc8f5ebc6/trump-pence-dont-agree-key-social-economic-policies">as Pence does</a>), don’t talk about it. By turning the abortion question into a question of partial birth abortion or taxpayer funding of abortion, Pence moves the line of cleavage to one in which Pence (and Trump) are on the side of the majority, while simultaneously reassuring conservatives of the Trump campaign’s commitment to the antiabortion cause. </p>
<p>It was a deft move.</p>
<p><em>Justin Buchler is the author of “Hiring and Firing Public Officials: Rethinking the Purpose of Elections.”</em></p>
<h2>Kyle Kopko, Elizabethtown College</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>“ … on the economy, there’s a fundamental choice for the American electorate. Do you want a ‘you’re hired’ president in Hillary Clinton or do you want a ‘you’re fired’ president in Donald Trump? I think that’s not such a hard choice.” – Tim Kaine, Democratic candidate for vice president</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To be sure, this was a scripted line – and even Mike Pence called him on it. Hillary Clinton and Kaine have used this talking point <a href="http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/08/05/kaine-tout-clinton-economic-agenda-grand-rapids/88281714/">on the campaign trail</a>. But, it’s likely to gain more traction in the coming weeks, especially given <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0">recent revelations</a> regarding Donald Trump’s 1995 tax returns as reported by The New York Times. </p>
<p>If Donald Trump did not pay federal income tax for the past 18 years, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/following-trump-tax-revelations-voters-in-toledo-question-his-business-acumen/2016/10/02/a2de2e62-88c8-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html">do not expect</a> many swing voters to embrace him for <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/vice-presidential-debate-mike-pence-donald-trump-taxes-229134">“brilliantly”</a> using the tax code to his advantage, despite what Mike Pence and other Trump campaign surrogates have argued. </p>
<p>During the first presidential debate, Trump stated that he was “smart” for taking advantage of the U.S. tax code. Following the debate, Hillary Clinton posed this <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/29/clinton_if_not_paying_taxes_makes_him_smart_what_does_that_make_the_rest_of_us.html">rhetorical question</a> to crowds of her supporters: “If not paying taxes makes him smart, what does that make the rest of us?” </p>
<p>Trump’s tax problems, business bankruptcies and the “you’re fired” tag-line from “The Apprentice” gives the Clinton/Kaine campaign plenty of ammunition for negative campaign ads. If Trump is such a successful businessman, how could he suffer a US$900 million loss in one year? Will he do for the United States what he did for <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-casinos-lost-jobs-at-greater-rate-than-atlantic-city-rivals-study-finds-1475162295">Atlantic City</a>? Look for more television ads along these lines in battleground states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia in the near future. </p>
<p>While Tim Kaine did not have an especially strong debate performance – appearing more rigid and scripted compared to Pence – he did no harm and he reinforced several important campaign themes. Now, the rest is up to Hillary Clinton. </p>
<p><em>Kyle Kopko is the coauthor of “The VP Advantage: How Running Mates Influence Home State Voting in Presidential Elections” with Christopher Devine.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66550/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kyle C. Kopko is affiliated with the Republican Committee of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Justin Buchler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One in five vice presidents becomes president. So we had scholars watching Tuesday night. Here’s what they heard.Kyle C. Kopko, Associate Professor of Political Science, Elizabethtown CollegeJustin Buchler, Associate Professor of Political Science, Case Western Reserve UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/661772016-10-04T10:11:01Z2016-10-04T10:11:01ZWhat Twitter’s streaming experiment means for the future of live TV<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139968/original/image-20161001-8922-b1fq5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The roll-out has been a bit clunky, but there's potential.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-201081797/stock-vector-blue-bird-using-phone.html?src=c2uIbt729eNy0KFS5AYHmA-1-79">'Bird' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Yet another way to watch television has emerged. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.recode.net/2016/9/23/13033836/how-many-watched-nfl-twitter-patriots-texans-viewers">More than two million viewers</a> watched some of the Thursday night NFL football game on Twitter each of the last three weeks, and <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/27/media/debate-social-media-twitter-facebook/index.html?iid=EL">several million more</a> used it to watch the first presidential debate. </p>
<p>For those who didn’t, here’s how it works: After opening the Twitter app and clicking Moments, you click “watch live” to join the live stream. If you position your phone horizontally, you’ll see a full screen image of the broadcast – really no different from watching any other video. But if you hold your phone vertically, the live feed is isolated to the top third of the screen; below is a Twitter feed of hashtags related to the event. (You can also watch it on a <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-good-and-bad-of-streaming-the-debate-on-twitter-and-facebook-105403458.html">computer screen</a>.) The live “Twittercast” is the latest development I’ve explored in 15 years of researching the changing business of U.S. television.</p>
<p>These two events illustrate different potential for Twitter-distributed video. Neither offered a “game-changing” experience – yet. But these two experiments, arriving in quick succession, reveal the future of live TV, which hasn’t been significantly affected by the arrival of services like Netflix and Amazon.</p>
<p>That’s clearly about to change.</p>
<h2>A deal is struck</h2>
<p>So why is the NFL letting Twitter show these games? Twitter did pay US$10 million for the rights (though <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-05/twitter-said-to-win-nfl-deal-for-thursday-night-streaming-rights">reportedly</a> was not the highest bidder). But a big advantage is that programmers gather a lot more information about viewers that watch on Twitter than by broadcast or cable. Knowing more about who your viewers are and how they watch can be valuable to advertisers.</p>
<p>Twitter, meanwhile, is forking over millions because football has a vast, engaged fan base, which is the fastest way to get audiences to try something new.</p>
<p>But why would you, the viewer, want to watch a football game on Twitter? Well, for one, it lets you watch if there isn’t an available television. </p>
<p>The NFL notoriously guards its television rights very tightly, and those who don’t subscribe to the Thursday night game’s license holders – CBS, NBC or NFL Network – lack authorized access to the games. </p>
<p>The Twittercast creates a subscription-free, anywhere, any-screen option – even if used in as mundane a setting as sitting with your family on the couch as they watch something else on TV.</p>
<h2>A better viewing experience?</h2>
<p>But in its current iteration, if you’re anywhere near a TV showing the game, you’ll want to watch the game there. When I used the Twittercast, there was a significant delay, usually around 30 seconds (the result of a technological issue called <a href="http://tvrev.com/need-talk-lag/#.V_JYCj8bx6E">latency</a>). </p>
<p>This means that if you’re near people watching the game on television, you’ll hear their response to a big play well before it’s unfolding on your screen. Moreover, if you have score alerts delivered to your phone, you may know what happens before you see it.</p>
<p>The need to see sporting events in real time is one of the reasons they have been <a href="http://www.tvinsider.com/article/62864/most-watched-tv-shows-2015-ratings/">immune to the changes timeshifting technologies</a> – streaming, on demand or DVR recording – have wrought on network schedules of scripted programs. </p>
<p>In the past, networks have tried to use social media discussions to encourage viewers to turn into scheduled broadcasts. By promoting hashtags or having writers and actors live tweet during the show, they hope to create a media event and a conversation around a weekly episode.</p>
<p>Twittercasts attempt to do the same, but the 140 character-limit of the medium can hamper how much conversation can actually take place. The feed visible when viewing vertically is simply made up of strangers who have included a game-related hashtag. To access your own Twitter community, you have to leave the game screen to shift to your home feed. The Twitter feed based on the game hashtag isn’t really a conversation – more a broadcast of thousands of fans’ reactions, many of which are repetitive and banal.</p>
<p>The debate Twittercast provided some contrast in this regard. There was more to engage with and was able to provoke more diverse reactions, which made it seem like eavesdropping on a lot of different conversations.</p>
<h2>What this means for the future</h2>
<p>Neither of these Twittercasts was revolutionary. But they do raise interesting questions about internet-distributed television’s next developments. </p>
<p>Television will never again be a predominantly live medium. But media events – whether sports contests, events like political speeches or breaking news – continue to be valued for allowing viewers to watch events unfold in real time.</p>
<p>Although the NFL and debate Twittercast experiments suggest Twitter intends a central role in distributing live video, it’s certainly not the only game in town. Periscope, the live-streaming app owned by Twitter, and Facebook Live (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/technology/live-streaming-breaks-through-and-cable-news-has-much-to-fear.html">noteworthy</a> as the sources of police shooting videos this summer) are also looking for businesses based on internet-distributed, live video. </p>
<p>But finding a business model for live, internet-distributed video is tricky. Most media events are unplanned, especially the disasters and emergencies that inspire us to huddle around screens. Moreover, most situations that truly demand live video – other than sports events – are not well-suited for commercial interruption.</p>
<p>Just as different business models can be found for other internet-distributed video – Netflix’s subscriber funding versus YouTube’s reliance on advertisers – different models will develop for live television. It all depends on the audience it gathers and whether viewers are willing to pay for it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66177/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Live events like sports seemed immune to streaming services’ assault on traditional broadcast TV. Now that might change.Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/656302016-09-23T03:43:30Z2016-09-23T03:43:30ZFive key debate moments that altered the course of a presidential race<p>Every presidential election year in my American Political Campaigns and Elections course, I get an opportunity to spend a full lecture discussing with students some of the famous moments from historic presidential debates. </p>
<p>I explain to students that while the presidential candidate debates are supposed to be about presenting policy alternatives to undecided voters, almost no one <a href="http://www.ags.edu/international-relations/do-presidential-debates-really-matter">pays any attention or remembers what the candidates say about policy</a>. </p>
<p>Instead the media covers the debates and voters interpret the debates in a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379413000449">winner and loser format</a>. Which candidate connected to voters the best? Who had the best zinger or inspirational line? </p>
<p>Some famous moments in debate history have reinforced the public’s negative perceptions of candidates, while other key moments have helped dispel such notions. </p>
<p>Here are five from past presidential debates, chosen for their impact on the election campaign and outcome.</p>
<h2>1960: Kennedy-Nixon</h2>
<p>In 1960, Richard Nixon had served as the Republican vice president for eight years after six years in Congress. Senator John Kennedy had served in Congress for 14 years, but was only 43 years old with a <a href="https://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Campaign-of-1960.aspx">youthful appearance and image</a>. Using the still relatively new medium of television, Kennedy and Nixon agreed to the first general election presidential candidate debates in American history, four in total. (The famous <a href="https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debates.htm">Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858</a> were for a U.S. Senate seat; they did not debate in the 1860 presidential election.) </p>
<p>Kennedy’s goal during the debates was to ease voters’ fears that he was too young and inexperienced to serve as president. Nixon, on the other hand, repeatedly emphasized his own foreign affairs experience in <a href="http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1960">campaign advertising</a>. </p>
<p>While Kennedy appeared comfortable and confident in front of television cameras, <a href="http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/131427">Nixon famously declined to wear makeup</a>, ended up sweating under the camera lights, and sometimes shifted his eyes, unsure where to look. While the legend that Kennedy won the debate among television viewers and Nixon won the debate among radio listeners <a href="https://www.paleycenter.org/p-the-nixon-kennedy-debates-a-look-at-the-myth/">may be a myth</a>, the debate did dispel the image that Kennedy was somehow less prepared than Nixon to be president.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138872/original/image-20160922-22518-1ydz1nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138872/original/image-20160922-22518-1ydz1nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138872/original/image-20160922-22518-1ydz1nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138872/original/image-20160922-22518-1ydz1nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138872/original/image-20160922-22518-1ydz1nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138872/original/image-20160922-22518-1ydz1nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138872/original/image-20160922-22518-1ydz1nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Richard Nixon wipes his face during the first televised presidential debate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150922125546-04-tbt-kennedy-nixon-debate-restricted-super-169.jpg">CNN</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>1980: Carter-Reagan</h2>
<p>Democratic President <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/jimmy-carter">Jimmy Carter</a> had presided over foreign policy crises in 1979 – including the taking of hostages from the U.S. Embassy in Iran – and persistent economic problems during his presidency. Some voters perceived him as <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/jimmy-carter">ineffective</a>. Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan, the former governor of California, was calling for a nuclear buildup during the Cold War and had a history of criticizing entitlement programs. Some also thought he was <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/age-was-issue-for-ronald-reagan-in-1980-will-be-for-hillary-clinton-in-2016/article/2547752">too old</a> to lead the nation. (At age 69, Reagan would become the oldest man ever elected president.)</p>
<p>The debates were delayed due to disagreement over whether John Anderson, an <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/debatingourdestiny/doc1980.html">independent candidate</a> whose polling numbers had dropped from over 20 percent to under 10 percent in the weeks before the election, should be allowed to participate. Carter and Reagan finally agreed to one debate a week before the election. </p>
<p>At the debate, Carter tried to reinforce Reagan’s image as a war hawk willing to start nuclear wars. In a key moment, Carter said that he had discussed politics with his 13-year-old daughter, Amy, to ask her what was the biggest issue in the election, and she answered “<a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29408">nuclear weaponry</a>.” </p>
<p>But Reagan came away with the most memorable moment. After Carter mentioned Reagan’s past opposition to Medicare, Reagan tilted his head, smiled and said, “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN7gDRjTNf4">There you go again</a>” to audience laughter – perhaps an attempt to dispel Carter’s attempts to make Reagan look dangerous. </p>
<p>In his closing statement, Reagan then spoke to voters through the cameras and asked “<a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29408">Are you better off than you were four years ago</a>?,” alluding to the state of the economy. <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trial-heat-trends.aspx">Polls</a> in the last week indicated a major surge in support for Reagan.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qN7gDRjTNf4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">‘There you go again.’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>1984: Reagan-Mondale</h2>
<p>Before the 1984 election, Reagan was 73 years old, already the oldest president in American history. Age was a potential issue for voters. During the first debate with Walter Mondale, the 56-year-old former vice president and former two-term U.S. senator, Reagan occasionally lost focus and <a href="http://it.stlawu.edu/%7Equack/seminar/mondale_campaign.htm">seemed confused</a>. After that first debate, Reagan’s large lead over Mondale in <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/debates/history/1984/index.shtml">polls began to narrow</a>.</p>
<p>During the second debate, a moderator asked Reagan whether his age should be an issue in the campaign. Reagan answered, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” </p>
<p>The audience laughed – <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4aUBbQeoHA">Mondale included</a> – and the media eagerly replayed and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/22/us/reagan-and-mondale-clash-on-arms-control-and-cia-in-debate-on-foreign-policy.html?pagewanted=all">reprinted</a> the joke. Reagan won in November in a landslide.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x4aUBbQeoHA?wmode=transparent&start=51" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">During a 1984 campaign debate, Reagan turned the issue of age on its head.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>1992: Bush-Clinton-Perot</h2>
<p>The 1992 presidential election involved the only three-candidate general election debates in American history. Incumbent George H.W. Bush needed to overcome an image that he was somewhat out of touch with recent problems in the American economy, an image partly shaped by media reports that Bush <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/05/us/bush-encounters-the-supermarket-amazed.html">had seemed amazed</a> at the technology of supermarket bar code scanners, which had been around since 1976. </p>
<p>In contrast, Clinton had famously told an upset voter earlier in the year that “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/28/us/1992-campaign-verbatim-heckler-stirs-clinton-anger-excerpts-exchange.html">I feel your pain</a>.” <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1992-elections-disappointment-analysis-eccentric-but-no-joke-perot-s-strong.html">Ross Perot</a>, a Texas multibillionaire, was not a Bush fan and was running a populist and centrist campaign focused on balanced budgets and opposition to trade agreements.</p>
<p>The second of three presidential debates that year was held in a town meeting format. During the debate, Bush was seen on camera <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBrW2Pz9Iiw">checking his wristwatch twice</a>, giving viewers the impression that he would rather be somewhere else. And when an audience member asked a question that made no sense, mixing up the national debt and economic recession, Bush told the audience member that he <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBrW2Pz9Iiw">didn’t understand her question</a>, while <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE">Clinton walked over</a> to her and invited her to tell him more about her economic problems.</p>
<p>This debate reinforced voter images of the candidates: Bush seemed less interested in the problems of average people, while Clinton expressed compassion toward voters.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7ffbFvKlWqE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Clinton expresses compassion.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2012: Obama-Romney</h2>
<p>At the <a href="//www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/10/04/six-reasons-mitt-romney-won-the-first-debate/">first debate</a> of 2012, Obama did not appear as energetic as usual and didn’t give any of the snappy answers that viewers expect and that tend to dominate media attention after debates. Following the debate, <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/08/romneys-strong-debate-performance-erases-obamas-lead/">polls</a> indicated that Romney had taken a small lead over Obama.</p>
<p>But at the second debate, when Romney asserted inaccurately that Obama had not referred to the attack on the Benghazi consulate in Libya as an “act of terror” for two weeks, moderator <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAvNvFFAY1U">Candy Crowley interjected</a> to correct Romney’s mistake. Obama chimed in “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” as Obama supporters at home reacted in delight at Romney’s embarrassment. Romney compounded his unfortunate choices of words at the debate by noting that as governor, he had received “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/10/17/mitt-romneys-binders-full-of-women/">whole binders full of women</a>” to consider for positions in state government. </p>
<p>The awkward comment became an instant joke, with dozens of <a href="http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc3gxiLcBM1r0wqrdo1_500.jpg">internet memes</a> circulating in the days after the debate.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vAvNvFFAY1U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Obama gets an assist from Candy Crowley.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Looking ahead</h2>
<p>While we don’t yet know which comments or events at this year’s debates may affect the outcome of the election or remain memorable, we can expect that candidates will do their best to dispel negative images of themselves – while reinforcing negative images of their opponents.</p>
<p>Watch for Hillary Clinton to focus on insulting comments that Donald Trump has made about people or groups and to focus on some of Trump’s past business practices: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html?_r=0">Trump University</a>, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html">the Trump Foundation</a> and his casino businesses. She will also likely try to expose some of Trump’s populist claims – <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/30/politics/donald-trump-enrique-pea-nieto-mexico/index.html">like Mexico paying for a wall on the border</a> – as devoid of substance. At the same time, she will try to reinforce her own image as an experienced political leader.</p>
<p>And watch for Trump to focus on past errors made by Clinton, like her foreign policy judgment, <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12941006/clinton-email-scandal-cartoon">her use of a private email server</a> and meetings with donors to <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/02/economist-explains-4">the Clinton Foundation</a>. Trump may also attempt to dispel his image as being inexperienced in world affairs by appearing calm and confident in his assertions, while pointing to past mistakes American leaders have made. He may also try to focus on some substantive and moderate policy proposals to distinguish himself from the bellicose firebrand he appears to be on the stump.</p>
<p>The campaign staffs of both candidates have likely been rehearsing some zingers that could be used in the first debate. But candidates need to be careful about making them sound spontaneous. If they sound rehearsed, they’ll reinforce one of the worst qualities people can think of a candidate: that they’re fake.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65630/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Speel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Policy nuances often fail to stick in the minds of debate viewers. It’s all about delivering the most memorable moment.Robert Speel, Associate Professor of Political Science, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/630962016-08-16T03:09:20Z2016-08-16T03:09:20ZAre U.S. politics beyond a joke?<p>“I really do respect the press,” President Barack Obama joked at the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/27/remarks-president-white-house-correspondents-association-dinner">White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner</a> in 2013, shortly after his second successful election campaign. “I recognize that the press and I have different jobs to do. My job is to be president; your job is to keep me humble. Frankly, I think I’m doing my job better.”</p>
<p>Obama’s comedic skill has, itself, been a key ingredient of his political success. Yet neither of the current presidential candidates appears to have much interest in following in his footsteps. “Wit and humor have been drained from our politics,” <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/hillary-clintons-lying-advantage/">the Washington Times lamented</a> earlier this month.</p>
<p>The emptying of humor in the current U.S. election campaign is striking, reflecting both the personal limitations of the current candidates and the exceptional gravity of the moment. Whether or not we are witnessing the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html">rise of American fascism</a>, the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/">end of the Republican Party</a> or the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/01/the-sun-may-be-setting-on-the-age-of-western-wealth-and-freedom/">disintegration of freedom in the Western world</a>, there is clearly a crisis in U.S. democratic culture. </p>
<p>In this dark political climate, displays of humor – for centuries, a mainstay of leadership – have become increasingly out of place. </p>
<h2>A serious turn</h2>
<p>Hillary Clinton, it is true, has attempted the occasional humorous barb. Donald Trump, she <a href="http://www.reuters.com/video/2016/06/02/clinton-says-trumps-foreign-policy-exper?videoId=368755239">observed wryly this June</a>, “says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia.” </p>
<p>But – <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/arts/television/review-hillary-clinton-on-saturday-night-live.html">Saturday Night Live appearances</a> notwithstanding – she has hardly been distinguished by her comic touch. Confronted with <a href="http://qz.com/624346/america-loves-women-like-hillary-clinton-as-long-as-theyre-not-asking-for-a-promotion/">deeply embedded prejudices against women in politics</a> (<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-female-comedians-disappear-after-dark-47818">and in comedy</a>), it’s understandable that female candidates may find it shrewd to display gravitas. Nonetheless, Clinton’s ventures into humor seem manufactured. </p>
<p>Equally, Trump’s particular brand of populism is scarcely to be confused with comedy. While he has sometimes been treated as <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/10/the-serious-problem-with-treating-donald-trump-seriously">a buffoon</a>, and Trevor Noah has hailed his <a href="http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a47550/trevor-noah-trump-second-amendment/">stand-up’s sense of timing</a>, Trump’s appeal to voters rests less on humor than on the performance of anger. </p>
<p>The “serious turn” in U.S. presidential politics marks a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/04/27/the-single-best-joke-told-by-every-president-from-obama-to-washington/">break from the past</a> – from Reagan’s cinematic smile, Obama’s skilled performances at White House Correspondents’ Dinners and American political norms that, according to <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/emo0000133">one study</a>, value smiling much more than the Chinese. </p>
<p>In Europe, on the other hand, politics seems to have retained some levity, even in the wake of the meltdown unleashed by Brexit. Though questions about new British Prime Minister Theresa May’s sense of humor “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/27/theresa-may-profile-beyond-the-public-image">tend to elicit a diplomatic pause</a>,” laughter and smiles appear more prominent in British parliamentary life. More than one observer described David Cameron’s <a href="https://neutralfooting.wordpress.com/2016/07/13/pmqs-watch-humour-at-camerons-last-pmqs/">final Prime Minister’s Question Time</a> as a stand-up comedy routine. </p>
<p>In a dig at the beleaguered Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, hugely popular among party members but targeted by many of his own parliamentary colleagues, Cameron observed: “He’s reminding me of the black knight in ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’! He’s been kicked so many times but he keeps saying ‘Keep going, it’s only a flesh wound!’” </p>
<p>For his part, Corbyn brought laughter from both sides of the aisle by thanking Cameron’s mother for her advice on “ties and suits and songs.” (Cameron had previously suggested that his mother would have told him to “put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem.”)</p>
<h2>Centuries of smiles</h2>
<p>It’s not just in the homeland of Monty Python that humor continues to reign. In Spain, in the run-up to the June elections, the electoral slogan of the new progressive party Podemos was <a href="https://lasonrisadeunpais.es/ahora-desempata-la-gente-la-sonrisa-pais/">“La Sonrisa de un País”</a> (“the Smile of a Country”). </p>
<p>The phrase was designed not only to capture a sense of optimism and possibility, but also to move beyond the image of the Old Left in Spain as dour, humorless revolutionaries. </p>
<p>Podemos (“We Can”) recognizes that the image of the “Angry Leftist” persists, evoking longstanding historic fears of the Spanish Civil War. And like Barack Obama (whose own campaign slogan was “Yes We Can”), the leader of Podemos, Pablo Iglesias, has mastered the telegenic smile. </p>
<p>Indeed, a glance at European history reminds us of just how long humor has been an integral component of leadership. In the 13th century, many rulers subscribed to a leadership ideal of the “rex facetus” – a “laughing king,” using humor as a political tool. Even the pious, crusading king Louis IX cultivated a reputation for hearty royal guffawing. </p>
<p>This strategy was not just a means of keeping one’s courtiers and subjects happy, although some rulers, like Spanish king <a href="http://simondoubleday.com/writings/wise-king-christian-prince-muslim-spain-birth-renaissance/">Alfonso the Wise</a>, were indeed committed to the pursuit of happiness and joy. It was also a way of exerting influence, enhancing the charisma of the ruler and undercutting the claims or standing of enemies. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134005/original/image-20160812-16372-1o8ebuu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134005/original/image-20160812-16372-1o8ebuu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=926&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134005/original/image-20160812-16372-1o8ebuu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=926&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134005/original/image-20160812-16372-1o8ebuu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=926&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134005/original/image-20160812-16372-1o8ebuu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1164&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134005/original/image-20160812-16372-1o8ebuu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1164&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134005/original/image-20160812-16372-1o8ebuu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1164&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alfonso the Wise was simultaneously devout and comically crude.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Alfonso_X_de_Castilla_02.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Remarkably, King Alfonso – best known today for commissioning and composing hundreds of songs about the Virgin Mary – was also involved in the production of obscenely comic songs of slander, in which he accused his noblemen of buttery cowardice and his courtesans of sexual transgression. </p>
<p>In contrast, neither wisdom nor saintliness nor good humane jokes are much in evidence in the current U.S. electoral campaign. Even professional comedians like <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/jon-stewart-stephen-colbert-rnc-fox-news-late-night-ailes/492596/">Jon Stewart</a> and <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/08/01/hbo-john-oliver-trump-khan/">John Oliver</a> have been sucked into the seriousness, drawing on their social capital to deliver righteous tirades. On June 15, at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner, comedian Hasan Mihaj unexpectedly turned the tables, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hasan-minhaj-guns-orlando_us_57645070e4b0fbbc8bea67e5">lacerating Congress</a> for its inaction on gun control. </p>
<p>“Let us not talk falsely now,” says the joker to the thief in Bob Dylan’s <a href="http://bobdylan.com/songs/all-along-watchtower/">“All Along the Watchtower”</a>; “the hour is getting late.” The presidential debates, beginning at <a href="http://www.hofstra.edu/debate/">Hofstra University</a> on September 26, will take place in a context of frightening urgency. This is not politics as usual: American politics is beyond a joke. </p>
<p>And if the principal parties have lost their sense of humor, it’s because – for now – the party’s over.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63096/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>For his book on Alfonso the Wise, which contained a passage on the use of humor in the 13th century, Simon Doubleday received funding from the Spanish government (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura, y Deporte). He is a member of the Labour Party and Momentum.</span></em></p>From Alfonso the Wise’s bawdy songs of slander to Ronald Reagan’s sunny smile, politics and humor have gone hand-in-hand for centuries. But no one seems to be laughing anymore.Simon Doubleday, Professor of History, Hofstra UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/522412016-01-27T15:41:59Z2016-01-27T15:41:59ZDear Media: Here are some tips for covering Donald Trump and the GOP campaign<p>The GOP candidates debate again tomorrow night. </p>
<p>Donald Trump reportedly won’t join them. His campaign has confirmed to various news outlets that he intends to skip the debate after losing a showdown with Fox News <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/26/fox-news-head-ill-let-donald-trump-walk-before-replacing-megyn-kelly-as-debate-moderator/">over Megyn Kelly’s role</a> as moderator. </p>
<p>That doesn’t mean he won’t be drawing media attention with what he says and how he says it. This time, let’s hope the media gets its coverage of Trump right.</p>
<p>By “get it right,” I mean more illumination of the candidate and his policies and less simple reflection of the heat he generates.</p>
<p>Journalists may find themselves challenged to find the light because of Trump’s politically aggressive approach and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/12/09/neutral-journalism-model-is-straining-under-pressure-from-donald-trump-tense-times/">inflammatory language</a>. He famously claimed Mexico sends <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/">rapists and criminals to the U.S.</a> He suggested <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/">Muslims</a> should <a href="https://theconversation.com/scholars-trumps-call-to-ban-muslims-is-un-american-52065">not be allowed</a> in the country, and that thousands of them <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/">cheered the attack on the World Trade Center</a> on 9/11. A Muslim woman was <a href="http://www.9news.com/story/news/2016/01/11/muslim-woman-talks-being-kicked-out-trump-rally/78653670/">recently ejected</a> from a Trump rally in South Carolina. </p>
<h2>Into the fray</h2>
<p>Trump targets journalists, too. His <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/26/here-are-the-megyn-kelly-questions-that-donald-trump-is-still-sore-about/">numerous disagreements</a> with Kelly started at the <a href="https://theconversation.com/fox-news-debate-weak-on-race-sour-on-trump-45752">first GOP debate</a> back in August. He had <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/25/politics/donald-trump-megyn-kelly-iowa-rally/">Jorge Ramos of Univision thrown out</a> of a press conference, although he later let him back in. In a TV interview, he called New Hampshire Union Leader publisher Joe McQuaid a “lowlife.” And he appeared to physically mock <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/new-york-times-slams-donald-trump-after-he-appears-mock-n470016">Serge Kovaleski</a> of The New York Times, who has a congenital joint disease.</p>
<p>Despite these attacks, it is critical in political campaigns that the public get information it can trust. How ethically journalists cover the news matters. As the Knight Chair of Media Ethics at Washington and Lee University who has taught ethics to professional journalists for a decade at the Poynter Institute, I see journalistic credibility as essential for a functioning democracy.</p>
<p>How can a journalist report the facts but also tell the truth? </p>
<p>What approach will enable the news media to convince its readers, listeners and viewers what matters is news – not views?</p>
<h2>A question of trust</h2>
<p>A good place to start is by critically examining the journalistic work being produced.</p>
<p>Trump’s caustic, often unproven, provocative statements and actions are prompting a number of those in the news media to reevaluate how to describe and label what he says. </p>
<p>Buzzfeed editor Ben Smith acknowledges that it is <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/shani/the-buzzfeed-editorial-standards-and-ethics-guide#.wb3YeKANm">a challenge to be fair</a> and not undermine his staff’s work, when it comes to covering Trump. Erik Wemple, the media critic at the Washington Post, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/12/09/neutral-journalism-model-is-straining-under-pressure-from-donald-trump-tense-times/">writes</a> that “neutral journalism” needs to be rethought when it comes to this candidate. </p>
<p>Smith’s and Wemple’s views challenge the “objective,” or even impartial, approach usually expected and followed by traditional journalists. For them, the journalistic tendency of just providing the facts may not be enough.</p>
<h2>Beyond stenography</h2>
<p>Defining a substantive news agenda is also important. </p>
<p>Plenty of news outlets will report on the horse race throughout the campaign to come. </p>
<p>What’s needed are more stories that provide a more thorough understanding of what would happen if Trump’s comments and policies became a reality. </p>
<p>The Washington Post did this harder kind of story when it looked at how Trump taps into the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/12/the-telling-way-white-americans-react-to-pictures-of-dark-skinned-immigrants/">antipathy some white Americans</a> have for immigrants. <a href="http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/could-trumps-muslim-ban-threaten-everyones-religious-freedom/">The National Catholic Register</a>, to choose another example, did a good job by examining what Trump’s ban on Muslims might have on the religious freedom of other religious groups.</p>
<h2>Look to history</h2>
<p>History provides some lessons on dealing with an accusatory candidate. </p>
<p>Salon writer Daniel Denvir penned an article headlined <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/12/08/why_donald_trump_is_the_second_coming_of_george_wallace/">“Donald Trump is the second coming of George Wallace.”</a> Wallace, like Trump, focused on those who feared for their safety, wrote Denvir.</p>
<p>In the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy became famous, then infamous, for supposedly uncovering Communists in the U.S. government. In general, too many journalists failed to report on McCarthy with depth or scope. The press stuck <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0324/032402.html">to “narrow definitions of ‘objectivity’ (that) provided little of no background or analysis</a>, according to Edwin R. Bayley, who wrote <a href="http://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0751.htm">a book</a> about McCarthy and the press.</p>
<p>Trump’s attacks matter, but they matter less than the news media’s need to decide what coverage is required, the accuracy of Trump’s messages and their impact. </p>
<p>By relying on journalistic codes and <a href="http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/1751/guiding-principles-for-the-journalist/">guiding principles</a>, journalists can position themselves to keep their focus off of themselves and centered on the implications and impact of Trump’s pronouncements. The key is to examine the why – and not just the what – of what Trump trumpets.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52241/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aly Colón does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Just ask Megyn Kelly of Fox News. Covering the Trump campaign is no picnic. But journalists have a duty to do more than write clickbait stories on the billionaire candidate.Aly Colón, Knight Professor of Journalism Ethics, Washington and Lee UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/426792015-06-14T20:22:31Z2015-06-14T20:22:31ZThis is why you will lose your argument<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84317/original/image-20150609-13934-1r4f3cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's so easy to get sidetracked during an argument if you don't remember just one thing. So what is it?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/danielavladimirova/4140111216/">Flickr/Daniela Vladimirova</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>So the Great Barrier Reef has not been listed as <a href="https://theconversation.com/unesco-recommends-great-barrier-reef-should-not-be-classed-as-in-danger-42564">endangered</a> by UNESCO. And same-sex marriage is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-09/former-finance-minister-calls-for-plebiscite-on-gay-marriage/6531526">high on the national agenda</a>. Care to argue the case? Careful, there’s a minefield ahead.</p>
<p>There is one thing that is poorly understood about arguing in the public arena. It is the reason that a strong case will often lose its momentum and that an obvious logical conclusion will be missed. It is one of the reasons our political leaders fail utterly to have a reasoned conversation with the population and with each other. And it’s why <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/science-denial">denialists</a> on just about any issue can sidestep rational debate.</p>
<p>It’s called the “point at issue” and describes what the argument is <em>actually</em> about. If you move away from this simple idea, the argument will be lost in a fog of related but unnecessary issues. </p>
<h2>Finding the point</h2>
<p>Before we can argue, we must actually agree on something: what we are arguing about. If we can’t do this, and then stick to it, there will be no progress.</p>
<p>Let’s consider the Great Barrier Reef as an example. Some <a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/editorial-the-green-movements-role-in-the-sorry-reef-debacle-exposes-them-as-frauds/story-fnihsr9v-1227376088954">media commentary</a> would have us believe that the fact the reef was not listed means any concerns about its well-being are entirely misplaced. </p>
<p>This misses the point completely. As many <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-barrier-reef-is-not-listed-as-in-danger-but-the-threats-remain-42548">articles</a> have pointed out, that the reef has not been listed does not mean any environmental concerns are unjustified. </p>
<p>The point at issue is whether the reef meets the UNESCO criteria for listing as endangered. It is another point entirely to say the reef is not at risk. Conflating the two muddies the waters.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fXGWy-xsBmE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Not officially endangered and not at risk are two different points.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As another example, imagine someone comments that locking up refugees is psychologically damaging to them. Another person says that the policy is much better under the current government than it was under the last. </p>
<p>The argument has shifted from whether the processes is damaging to who manages the process best. It is not the same thing. If that is not noticed, the argument usually degenerates and we are no closer to finding the truth of the original claim.</p>
<p>For a third example, the federal treasurer, Joe Hockey, recently had to <a href="http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/treasurer-joe-hockey-faces-grilling-on-qa-over-this-years-budget/story-e6frfmyi-1227369005759">defend spending his accommodation entitlements</a> when he is in Canberra on a house owned by his wife. He tried to argue the necessity of politicians to be able to claim expenses as they move into the capital for parliamentary business. But these are two different points. Arguing the second does not progress the first. </p>
<p>Deniers of climate science engage in shifting the point at issue as a standard part of their argument technique. One example involves moving from the fact that there is a rapid shift in global temperature to that climate has always changed. </p>
<p>Another example is moving from <a href="http://riaus.org.au/articles/consilience-in-science/">consilience</a> and consensus in climate science as indicators of the degree of confidence within the scientific community to trying to make the debate that consensus is not proof. In both cases the latter point is true, but it’s not the point under discussion.</p>
<p>Changing the point at issue often flags an attempt to move the argument onto more favourable ground rather than engage with it on the offered terms.</p>
<h2>Focusing our thinking is not easy</h2>
<p>This type of intellectual sidestepping is the root of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/straw-man-science-keeping-climate-simple-10782">straw man argument</a>. It is the source of the common phrase “beside the point”, indicating that it is not directly relevant.</p>
<p>If we follow this path, the original argument remains unaddressed and we have only the illusion of progress.</p>
<p>The trick is to recognise when the point at issue shifts, but to do this you need to be very clear at the start about what the original argument is. If you are not clear, you are vulnerable to defeat, losing to an argument that was not your point in the first place. Recognising this shift is a surprisingly difficult thing to do.</p>
<p>One of the reasons we do not focus well on the point at issue, and are sometimes very bad at defining it, is that our minds range across related topics very well. We see connections, implications and perspectives on many issues. This is a useful tendency, but one that needs to be curbed to develop a sharp argumentative focus.</p>
<p>If the point at issue is that smoking is bad for you, don’t start talking about the individual liberty to smoke. If it’s that biodiversity in forests is important, don’t make it about logging jobs. If it’s about how well a political party is doing a job, don’t turn it into a comparison with the other mob.</p>
<p>Stick to the point, sort it out properly, and then move on to the next one.</p>
<h2>How we frame an issue can define the argument</h2>
<p>Finding the point at issue is also a matter of framing the issue correctly.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83788/original/image-20150603-10669-usdyu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83788/original/image-20150603-10669-usdyu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83788/original/image-20150603-10669-usdyu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83788/original/image-20150603-10669-usdyu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83788/original/image-20150603-10669-usdyu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=594&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83788/original/image-20150603-10669-usdyu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=594&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83788/original/image-20150603-10669-usdyu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=594&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How a debate is framed can change the point at issue.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rishi S/flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Realise, for example, that the point of not teaching Intelligent Design in science classes is one of quality control, not of academic freedom. Or that teaching about religion in schools is not the same thing as instruction in specific religions. Or that same-sex marriage is about equality of rights, not degrading them.</p>
<p>As Christopher Hitchens so <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB107827627378044934">succinctly put it</a> when considering the issue of homosexual marriage more than a decade ago:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is an argument about the socialisation of homosexuality, not the homosexualisation of society.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Politicians are masters at changing frames and the point at issue. Witness the use of phrases like “what the public really wants to know” or “what’s really important here” to avoid addressing the issue raised in an interview.</p>
<p>Journalists are often very lax about this, allowing the point at issue to change without bringing it back and pressing for an answer to the original question.</p>
<p>One of the skills of advanced argumentation – and of good journalism – is knowing how to keep things on track. This includes the ability to recognise when the argument shifts and to say “that’s not what we are talking about”. </p>
<p>It also includes knowing how to go on and explain to people that their argument may be relevant to the topic in general but it’s not relevant to the specific point at issue.</p>
<p>You might like to argue that many of the topics I’ve mentioned should be explored in full. That we should talk about biodiversity and jobs when discussing forests, for example. But if you think that, you missed the point at issue of this article. </p>
<p>There’s no reason not to pursue other arguments and other points at issue, but let’s take them one at a time for the sake of clarity and improvement. This is what will improve public debate and better hold politicians to account. </p>
<p>That’s what I’m talking about.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42679/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Ellerton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s so easy to get side-tracked in any discussion and once that happens you’re doomed. So what do you need to know to win your argument?Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/394402015-03-27T15:46:14Z2015-03-27T15:46:14ZIn the Battle for Number 10, there was only one winner – Jeremy Paxman<p>There is nothing the public likes more than seeing a politician be verbally torn to pieces on live TV. In the first pre-election leaders’ event, we were all treated to the spectacular tearing apart of the two men who could be our prime minister in a few weeks time.</p>
<p>The response online was very predictable. Those who liked Cameron said he came across well. Those who liked Miliband thought he did a good job. The hashtag accompanying the programme was #BattleForNumber10 which racked up <a href="http://topsy.com/analytics?q1=%23battleforNumber10&via=Topsy">more than 250,000 mentions</a> in just a few hours. </p>
<p>Among the many thousands of tweets, there was commentary by celebrities such as <a href="https://twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/581220769306263553">Lord Sugar</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/581217528669573120">Piers Morgan</a>, and <a href="https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/581214496414404609">Katie Hopkins</a>, most of which was partisan bluster attacking the person they liked the least.</p>
<p>On the topic of unlikeable people, one of the programmes hosts – Kay Burley – received a lot of flack online, most notably for her clear lack of impartiality.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"581214808793567232"}"></div></p>
<p>Whether it was the monthly Murdoch cheque that she gets, the show’s producers telling her that she was too soft on Cameron in the first segment, or some other reason, it was clear that Kay was intervening more during Miliband’s segment. This certainly gave the impression of bias on the show. Speaking of bias, the parties’ reaction on Twitter was somewhat lopsided. While there were MPs engaging on both sides, the <a href="https://twitter.com/labourpress">Labour press team</a> certainly appeared more active.</p>
<h2>Battle of the hashtags</h2>
<p>While #BattleForNumber10 was by far the most-used hashtag during the programme, there were some other noteworthy ones. The first of these was <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23notadebate">#notadebate</a>; the primary focus of which to criticise the format of the programme. It’s clear that this segmented Q&A didn’t live up to the proper head-to-head debate that many people wanted. A hashtag predominantly used by Labour supporters and politicians was #runningscared, in which people chided Cameron for being in the same building as Miliband yet refusing to go head-to-head against him.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"581225228392599552"}"></div></p>
<p>The other, smaller parties also got in on the Twitter action using the hashtag <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23TheWiderDebate">#TheWiderDebate</a>. The Green Party and the SNP were bemoaning the fact that the programme format gave the impression that it was a two-horse race for No.10, and that many of the issues that they consider important weren’t being discussed.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"581223316335235073"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"581225238911979520"}"></div></p>
<h2>And the winner is…</h2>
<p>In the Battle for Number 10, Jeremy Paxman reminded us why he is one of the best interviewers in the country. Unlike Kay Burley, he was <a href="https://twitter.com/Kernowsmith/status/581237600373092352">seen as being equally as harsh</a> on Cameron and Miliband alike. Paxman made both men look dangerously fallible, asking cutting questions that held their feet to the fire on both past pledges and future promises. When Paxman broached the topic of David Miliband, the heat almost seemed to much for Ed, and at the end of the interview, <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-jeremy-paxmans-microphone-5408903">Paxman could be heard asking</a> the Labour leader if he was “all right”. </p>
<p>Some on Twitter felt that Paxman was simply <a href="https://twitter.com/markpatersonuk/status/581235715327033345">being a bully</a> and unnecessarily harsh. I understand that this way of interviewing is not everyone’s cup of tea, but I revel in his combative style. In my opinion, softball interviews are damaging to democracy, and bad media practice. And these days, a tough interview of a politician is a rare thing. As Sunny Hundal aptly summarised:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"581203713429250049"}"></div></p>
<p>Initial polling after the programme showed that <a href="https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/581225956142112768">Cameron slightly performed better Miliband</a>, but judging from the sentiment online, I don’t think many people’s voting preferences changed. Based on the answers we heard, I don’t think we learnt anything new either. </p>
<p>But then again, perhaps that wasn’t the point. After all, we got what we came for: a performance from our prospective prime ministers under pressure from one of the best political interviewers of our time. At the end of the day, the Battle for Number 10 was just a show.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39440/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Jeremy Paxman might be a bully, but his confrontational style makes for a great show.Steven Buckley, PhD student, Journalism & New Media, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/377362015-02-23T14:58:12Z2015-02-23T14:58:12ZThe leaders’ debates: three into seven might not go<p>After a great deal of horse trading, a timetable for the election debates <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31588700">has been set</a>, culminating in a head-to-head between the prime minister, David Cameron, and his opposite number Ed Miliband a week before voters go to the polls.</p>
<p>If all agree (and this is <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/lib-dems-debates-unlikely-happen">still not certain</a>), this will settle a process that seems to have dragged on for months: the major broadcasters <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30955379">substantially changed</a> their format for the pre-election leaders’ debates, after Cameron <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/14/uk-britain-politics-idUKKBN0KN0TO20150114">threatened to boycott the event</a> if the Green Party was not invited. But the changes may have unforeseen consequences, especially with relation to the UK’s nationalist parties. </p>
<p>The “4-3-2” model – which would have featured the leaders of UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives – has since been ditched in favour of a “7-7-2” format. The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) – buoyed by polls indicating they are set to win the general election north of the border – have secured a place in the enlarged debates, along with their Welsh counterparts Plaid Cymru and the Greens. </p>
<h2>I agree with Nicola</h2>
<p>Plaid leader Leanne Wood’s presence in the debates raises the prospect of the Welsh nationalist joining her long-established SNP ally Nicola Sturgeon in a double act to face off against the others. It would not be the first time the two nationalist parties have collaborated to enhance their broadcast presence. </p>
<p>In 1997, Alex Salmond and Dafydd Wigley <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2176622/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1">appeared together</a> in the same BBC Panorama leader interview. In doing so, they guaranteed that their respective causes were represented in a fourth episode of the series, which was otherwise devoted to the three major party leaders.</p>
<p>This relationship is an enduring one. Both parties are members of the <a href="http://efa.greens-efa.eu/267-presentation.html">European Free Alliance</a> (EFA) – one of the groupings in the EU parliament. The EFA works and acts as a single-party entity, containing similar independence-minded politicians from other putative break-away states, including Catalonia. </p>
<h2>We agree with Natalie?</h2>
<p>The EFA is also in a formal pact with Green MEPs, and this raises the scenario of the nationalists partaking in some kind of “tag team” with Green leader Natalie Bennett during the debates, whereby they could promote a common agenda centring on their shared opposition to austerity and the renewal of Trident, among other things. </p>
<p>This is not idle speculation, given that Plaid’s general election co-ordinator, Lord Dafydd Wigley, has <a href="http://www.partyof.wales/news/2015/01/28/plaid-urges-voters-in-england-to-embrace-new-politics/?force=1">recently urged</a> voters in England to support Green candidates in the forthcoming poll. Nor is such an endorsement unprecedented: during the 1990s, both parties took the rare step of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-12599220">formally supporting</a> the election of Plaid Cymru MP Cynog Dafis on a hybrid ticket.</p>
<h2>A united Northern Ireland</h2>
<p>Northern Ireland’s politicians have found common ground over the leaders’ debates: they would <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30953493">like to be involved</a>. They argue that they may have a vital role to play in the formation of a coalition government if – as appears likely – there is another hung parliament after May 7. </p>
<p>But it seems unlikely these politicians will be invited, given that two of the four parties with MPs (SDLP and Alliance) already enjoy links to “sister” organisations (Labour and Liberal Democrats respectively), which do not stand candidates in the province. <a href="http://www.itv.com/presscentre/press-releases/televised-leaders-election-debates-joint-statement-bbc-and-itv-regarding-northern">Broadcasters will also claim</a> that they already provide debating opportunities for leaders of the Northern Irish parties, along with their larger rivals, the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Fein.</p>
<h2>Empty chair or empty threat?</h2>
<p>If Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Wood do end up representing their parties in the debates, they will take to the stage as party leaders but, interestingly, not as prospective parliamentary candidates for the actual election. </p>
<p>In the former case, this anomaly is reinforced by there being three obvious alternative debaters who are also SNP Prospective Parliamentary Candidates this May: the party’s deputy leader Stewart Hosie MP, its Westminster leader Angus Robertson MP – and Alex Salmond, the former first minister at Holyrood, who has fresh experience of televised debates during the Scottish referendum campaign. </p>
<p>It is not inconceivable that parties such as the Greens could rotate their debate representation between Bennett and her predecessor Caroline Lucas – currently the Greens’ sole MP – in the spirit of inclusivity that has been a hallmark of their organisation. </p>
<p>The ability of an individual party to determine its debate representative creates a potential excuse for their rivals to opt out. David Cameron might consider sending a substitute, such as the Conservative chairman, Grant Shapps, to avoid the ignominy of being “empty chaired”. Could broadcasters refuse to accept an alternative representative? </p>
<p>In 1997, for instance, John Major got Michael Heseltine to deputise for him in “ITV 500: The People’s Choice”, the channel’s then key forum where undecided voters got to cross-examine each leader. Major’s no-show did provoke anger from the programme’s audience, though it was on the eve of a poll he was about to lose by a landslide, so this may not have had too much bearing on the electoral outcome. If one or other candidates backs out in the coming weeks, they will have to face down recriminations – not least on social media where there will be no place to hide.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37736/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Deacon has received funding from the Electoral Commission and The Guardian in relation to their past analysis of media reporting during UK General Elections and also from the BBC Trust in respect of broadcasters' coverage of various topical news events.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dominic Wring has received funding from the Electoral Commission and The Guardian in relation to their past analysis of media reporting during UK General Elections and also from the BBC Trust in respect of broadcasters' coverage of various topical news events.</span></em></p>The debate over the debates rages on, and the broadcasters’ decision to widen the field could have unexpected consequences.Dominic Wring, Reader in Political Communication, Loughborough UniversityDavid Deacon, Professor of Communications and Media Analysis, Loughborough UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/173392013-08-22T03:01:55Z2013-08-22T03:01:55ZDon’t these guys ever shut up? How Tony Abbott reignited the gender debate without realising it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29723/original/5dtf7qtx-1377134268.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tony Abbott may have subconsciously revived the gender debate in Australian politics when he asked if Kevin Rudd ever 'shuts up' in last night's debate.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Opposition leader Tony Abbott seems to have done the job. Some judges reckon the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/16/tony-abbott-boxing-technique">Oxford boxing blue</a> endured nothing worse than a split decision points loss. Others credit him with delivering a “knockout blow”. Fans think Abbott spoke for the common man when he asked of Kevin Rudd: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85Twwv05JUY">“does this guy ever shut up?”</a></p>
<p>The phrase “common man” is neither a typo nor sexist slip. Abbott has reawakened the gender war, this time dragging the media into the frame. The question is: will anybody notice? When it comes to television, the answer is probably not. Because blokes like Abbott have ever been its stock in trade.</p>
<p>Some of this isn’t about Abbott. Or this election. Or even Australia. It’s about the medium that is still central to media politics.</p>
<p>Television still exerts a mythical power over elections. Looking at last night, it’s hard not to think of the <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2021078,00.html">Kennedy-Nixon US presidential debates</a> in 1960. Then, so the story goes, television’s capacity to unravel politicians with its inquisitorial live-to-air stare changed history. Whether that’s true or not is immaterial: it is widely believed.</p>
<p>So it’s likely that Abbott’s put-down will pass into the history of Australian media politics. As we’re in the process of making myths, let’s get back to gender. Abbott’s crack speaks to a less visible television trend that doesn’t bode well for Australia.</p>
<p>Much has been made in this campaign about how our parties have looked to America for their strategies. Barack Obama’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/four-more-years-that-obama-tweet-and-the-politics-of-intimacy-10606">social media capabilities</a> are the talk of the town, but the US president understands the power of televised taunting only too well. Ask one-time White House hopeful Donald Trump. </p>
<p>“The Donald”, darling of the “birther” movement, was left literally speechless during a televised roast, where <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1myBOkf3QBM">Obama offered</a> this bon mot in reference to Trump’s television show, Celebrity Apprentice:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You, Mr Trump, recognised that the real problem was a lack of leadership. And so ultimately, you didn’t blame Lil’ Jon or Meatloaf. You fired Gary Busey. And these are the kind of decisions that would keep me up at night.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But the advent of the stand-up comedian politician speaks to less savoury developments. What we saw last night is the comedy of conflict. And even some of its most skilled performers are uneasy.</p>
<p>Daily Show host and American comedian Jon Stewart has previously asked right-wing political commentators in the US to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE">“stop hurting America”</a>. This wasn’t an ad hominem attack; more a plea to abandon a particular style of political commentary whose goal it is to demonise and demean opposing views.</p>
<p>Stewart’s fears took a grave turn in 2011. When US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in an attempted assassination, prominent media commentators wondered if they were somehow to blame. Political commentator Keith Olbermann <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com.au/keith-olbermann-special-comment-gabrielle-giffords-glenn-beck-limbaugh-2011-1">publicly accused</a> male media presenters of debasing politics to a slanging match between blokes. It wasn’t surprising, to him, that a woman had been hurt in the fallout.</p>
<p>One could argue that the incident summarised a history of US television. In a series of <a href="http://www.asc.upenn.edu/gerbner/archive.aspx?sectionID=155">“violence profiles”</a> conducted during the 1970s, academics found screen conflict was mostly about gender and power. Back then, TV told the same story over and over again: the world was a dangerous place, and women were most likely to be its victims. The only people who were likely to survive the screen <a href="http://www.asc.upenn.edu/Gerbner/Archive.aspx">were</a> “white, middle aged men in the prime of life”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29720/original/ccdjb6p6-1377132362.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29720/original/ccdjb6p6-1377132362.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29720/original/ccdjb6p6-1377132362.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29720/original/ccdjb6p6-1377132362.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29720/original/ccdjb6p6-1377132362.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29720/original/ccdjb6p6-1377132362.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29720/original/ccdjb6p6-1377132362.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former prime minister Julia Gillard was subjected to unprecedented sexism during her term in office.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At face value, these look like dated arguments: media are full of all kinds of women, doing whatever they like. In television and film, at least, there are no limits.</p>
<p>But former prime minister Julia Gillard’s experiences suggest that the medium’s old reflexes are still there, like some sort of patriarchal Arthurian legend, ready to go to work when the situation demands. The fable goes like this: women, stay where you are, keep society as it is, we will protect you. And you will be punished if you try to be different.</p>
<p>Whatever your political persuasion, it’s hard not to see that in Gillard’s political demise. Australia’s first female prime minister was subjected to <a href="https://theconversation.com/dining-out-on-the-prime-minister-time-to-change-the-menugate-15161">unprecedented personal ridicule</a>, and her deceased father was insulted. When she complained of gender bias, this was dismissed as nothing but the forlorn hope of an opportunist who had run out of luck. The idea that she might have a point was laughed at.</p>
<p>Today, Gillard must be tempted to say “told you so”. But she won’t, because in the end she was silenced: <a href="http://annenberg.usc.edu/Faculty/Communication%20and%20Journalism/GrossL.aspx">symbolically annihilated</a>. This wasn’t just down to the gender politics of the media. But last night we saw how smoothly these politics slot into what we think of as entertainment. If Abbott’s quip seems run-of-the-mill, that’s precisely the problem. A pugilistic male politician telling his opponent to shut up is what passes for wit. </p>
<p>Today, Julia Gillard is owed an apology.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17339/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andy Ruddock does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Opposition leader Tony Abbott seems to have done the job. Some judges reckon the Oxford boxing blue endured nothing worse than a split decision points loss. Others credit him with delivering a “knockout…Andy Ruddock, Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.