tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/gop-debate-19324/articlesGOP debate – The Conversation2016-01-29T10:45:50Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/538822016-01-29T10:45:50Z2016-01-29T10:45:50ZPolitics of resentment on full display at GOP debate<p>Thursday night, the Republican candidates for president (minus one) gathered to debate the future of the country. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-06664-6.html">As a scholar of rhetoric and public address</a>, what stood out to me was how closely the rhetoric of the candidates followed a well-established pattern for GOP rhetoric that dates back to the 1960s. Capitalizing on Americans’ feelings of anger, frustration, and powerlessness, it’s a rhetorical strategy meant to fracture, divide, confuse and enrage.</p>
<p>I call it the politics of resentment.</p>
<p>Today, in an age of recession and sequestration – when so many people have lost their houses and their jobs, when younger Americans are crushed by student loan debts and older Americans are inundated with medical bills – many feel they’ve gotten a raw deal. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199503/the-uses-resentment">Resentment is a very human response</a>. But it’s also a potent emotion for politicians to exploit. And while Democrats are not immune to exploiting Americans’ resentment, it is Republicans who have had the most success in recent decades with the politics of resentment. </p>
<h2>A victimized “us” and an oppressive “them”</h2>
<p>Here’s the playbook:</p>
<p>First, avoid talking about the genuine causes of our suffering and instead blame the other side. </p>
<p>Rather than talking about racism or sexism or xenophobia or income inequality, rather than discussing climate change or the collapse of public education or the vast influence of corporations over our elections, the politics of resentment aims to exploit the deep frustrations Americans feel by dividing citizens into two camps. </p>
<p>It could be George W. Bush’s red states and blue states; Sarah Palin’s <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/palin-visits-a-pro-america-kind-of-town/">“real” America</a> and its inverse (whatever that may be); the hard workers and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/04/why-mitt-romneys-47-percent-comment-was-so-bad/">Mitt Romney’s 47 percent</a>; Paul Ryan’s “makers and takers”; or Donald Trump’s invocation of the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/18/donald-trumps-silent-majority-isnt-a-majority">“silent majority”</a> (the trope that Richard Nixon rode to victory in the late 1960s) and its vocal oppressors. </p>
<p>Second, position yourself as the leader of the victimized masses. </p>
<p>Once Americans have been divided into two warring factions, it becomes possible to label one group as victims, the other as oppressors. </p>
<p>After anointing themselves as the spokesperson for the outraged masses, these politicians don’t need to make reasoned arguments – or even use evidence. Take Ted Cruz: during Thursday’s debate he offered a highly dubious statistic that “millions” of Americans had lost their jobs under Obamacare – even though the U.S. economy has added nearly <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/11/06/jobs-report-full-time-employment-now-above-where-it-was-before-the-recession/">nine million jobs</a> since 2009. </p>
<p>The statistics about the successes of Obamacare don’t matter to the politics of resentment. What matters is that Obamacare – and, by extension, President Obama – is a convenient target for the resentment of Republicans who have, in Cruz’s words, “been burned over and over again.” </p>
<p>This is powerful emotional rhetoric: the goal is to give voice to the abstract resentment that individuals may be loath to express. </p>
<h2>What about Trump?</h2>
<p>Jeb Bush distinguished himself from his fellow candidates when he called for a campaign without racial discrimination or Islamophobia. His comments were, of course, directed at the absent Donald Trump. </p>
<p>And no one has practiced the politics of resentment better than Trump. His decision to boycott the debate was a masterstroke of political strategy, for it allowed him to avoid tough questions while positioning himself as the victim of unfair media coverage.</p>
<p>In fact, Trump remains the greatest representative of today’s politics of resentment. Trump has had great success this primary season by positioning his followers (“we,” “us”) as victims of “them,” whether that means “liberals,” “atheists,” “immigrants” or “Muslims.” Earlier this week, he added the media – specifically, Fox News and Megyn Kelly – to the list of oppressors. </p>
<h2>It’s easiest to scapegoat people</h2>
<p>The politics of resentment harnesses the vague resentment many Americans feel and directs it at individuals: “enemies” who are scapegoated as the cause of our suffering. </p>
<p>But this completely ignores the fact that many of the injustices Americans face – whether it’s income inequality or climate catastrophe or hate crimes or the privatization of public goods – are systemic.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/">A Theory of Justice</a>, philosopher John Rawls argues that the psychological state of resentment involves a calculation of justice. For him, resentment is a just reaction to being wronged by someone. Yet the morality of resentment is scrambled as soon as we take into account structural injustice. When it’s a social system – rather than an individual – that wrongs us, it’s much harder to focus our resentment.</p>
<p>Whom should we blame for the ravages of a economic system that places profit above people and treats citizens as commodities – one that tosses people out of their homes while rewarding the bankers who rigged the system and caused the Great Recession in the first place?</p>
<p>Whom should we blame for global warming?</p>
<p>Who should we blame for racism, sexism, and xenophobia? </p>
<p>As rhetorical actors, it’s difficult to simply condemn a system. </p>
<p>Far easier is blaming a person for the world’s ills – like last night, when Senator Marco Rubio, speaking quickly and forcefully, opened and closed the debate with attacks on President Obama. Rubio ended by positioning himself as the one to unite the GOP. But it’s clear that he – like his fellow candidates – seek to create “unity” by highlighting divisions. </p>
<p>The goal of the politics of resentment is not <em>e pluribus unum</em>, one out of many, but instead <em>e unibus duo</em>, two out of one: us versus them. </p>
<p>However, the politics of resentment doesn’t offer real solutions to the structural ills afflicting Americans. It’s a strategy of distraction – and a very dangerous strategy at that.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, while resentment is a natural reaction to injustice, it’s when Americans find themselves in a state of resentment that they become most vulnerable to manipulation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53882/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeremy Engels is a registered member of the Democratic Party. </span></em></p>According to an expert in political rhetoric, we shouldn’t underestimate the power of the candidates who can skillfully tap into voter resentments.Jeremy David Engels, Associate Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/502282015-11-10T10:47:17Z2015-11-10T10:47:17ZHow ratings-driven presidential debates are weakening American democracy<p>Anyone curious about the state of American democracy should simply tune into the GOP debate series, whose next episode airs Tuesday night on Fox Business Network. </p>
<p>If the first two debates are any indication, advertisers will be clamoring to buy up commercial spots, especially after the “buzz” generated last week: special conditions demanded by the candidates, Trump’s controversial – though dull – SNL appearance and the <a href="http://mm4a.org/1kftYyQ">Ben Carson “bombshell”</a> that he never applied to West Point (as he’d previously claimed). Yes, the debate has the makings of another ratings bonanza. </p>
<p>Televised presidential debates originated in the 1960s, during TV’s golden era. But back then, networks ran news divisions at a loss in exchange for being granted a licensed monopoly over public airways by the FCC. Candidates, in exchange for the publicity, answered hard questions posed by moderators. </p>
<p>Today, the rules of the debate game have shifted to reflect a new media reality, one in which broadcasters have a powerful financial interest in promoting debates centered on entertainment, rather than substantive discussions of policy issues. </p>
<p>In fact, today’s debates can be likened to World Wrestling Entertainment: there are heroes and villains, winners and losers, entrance themes and announcers, drama and intrigue (will Biden show?) – even an “<a href="http://bit.ly/1MHgdz8s">undercard</a>.” </p>
<p>Like it or not, the democratic process has been usurped by an endless, ratings-driven spectacle. And for networks – with the debates’ stripped-down production costs and high ratings – it’s like hitting the mother lode.</p>
<h2>Record audiences yield record profits</h2>
<p>Back in August, 24 million viewers watched the first GOP debate on Fox News. A month later, CNN drafted off this success, drawing 23.1 million viewers and selling commercials at US$200,000 apiece, <a href="http://adage.com/article/media/cnn-charging-40-times-usual-price-commercials-republican-debate/300185/">roughly 40 times what they normally charge</a>. And even though CNBC only drew 14 million viewers in the latest debate, it was the network’s most-watched show. Accordingly, <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/28/media/cnbc-debate-ads-ratings/">they charged $250,000 per spot</a>, a surge pricing rate that yielded record profits. </p>
<p>Tuesday night, 21st Century Fox and News Corp will list two of its properties – Fox Business Network (FBN) and the Wall Street Journal – as cohosts. It will be a big moment for the nascent network: their biggest show ever. </p>
<p>Even the undercard debate, which captured 1.6 million viewers for CNBC, will yield unprecedented audiences and profits for FBN, whose most-watched show <a href="http://talkingbiznews.com/1/regans-show-on-fox-business-posts-best-ratings-ever/">drew a mere 152,000 viewers</a>. No matter which network airs which show, the audiences this year dwarf anything seen in the 2012 GOP debates, which had a peak viewership of <a href="http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/final-2012-gop-primary-debate-ranker-abc-nbc-on-top-fox-news-1-on-cable/114398">7.6 million</a>. </p>
<p>If, as Marshall McLuhan <a href="http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/mcluhan.mediummessage.pdf">once speculated</a>, the medium is the message, political rhetoric and modes of campaigning – at least for candidates whom TV talking heads call “electable” – have become indistinguishable from strategies used by TV networks to boost ratings. </p>
<p>In an age of slickly produced identity politics, the presidential debate series – part reality show, part melodrama – is a hit that bounces from network to network and features different personality types that appeal to different viewer demographics. Audiences get to “know” the contestants, and throwing their weight behind those they like and raging against those they hate, they’re deeply invested in their success or failure. </p>
<p>Though pundits and pollsters determine who wins or loses each debate, the media corporations who put on the shows – <a href="http://adage.com/article/media/tv-trump/299987/">and who use the ongoing drama to pump up ratings for other shows</a> – are the real winners. </p>
<h2>Leveraging a hot commodity</h2>
<p>And the candidates have noticed. Last week, while discussing the backlash CNBC received for asking hard questions, Rand Paul plainly <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/rand-paul-to-young-people-treat-free-college-like-somebodys#.vgYE0lOl9">expressed</a> the new order: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have a product that 20 million people want to watch. And so we should negotiate. People should bid for this. In fact, I think the networks ought to pay the Republican Party to air it. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Live debates, once commercial-free and sober, are now seen by politicians and networks as profitable entertainment products, viewed by audiences who have been conditioned to evaluate them as such. No matter how hard the media tries to comb over this bald reality beneath the ratings-driven political process, democracy in America has been hijacked by the entertainment industry. </p>
<p>Viewed through this lens, the orchestrated pushback against CNBC after the last debate by candidates and pundits (who largely parroted <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/what-liberal-media/">50-year-old complaints</a> about “trust” and “liberal bias”) <a href="http://cnnmon.ie/1PSBP1X">is nakedly cynical</a>. </p>
<p>With Fox leading the charge, it’s clearly a strategy to drive up ratings for Tuesday’s show – and for <a href="http://cnnmon.ie/1HdupOL">Fox Business Network to grab some of CNBC’s market share</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"659552356665659392"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"659529245019021314"}"></div></p>
<p>Meanwhile, <a href="http://wpo.st/Wjcl0">the GOP candidate demands last week</a> for friendlier treatment from networks speak to a shift in power brought about by the profitability of the series, which the performers are now using as leverage. </p>
<h2>In media we trust</h2>
<p>As Donald Trump learned for 14 years on The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice, big ratings demand sensationalism, polarizing personalities, catchphrases and conflict. </p>
<p>Yet this creates risk for the presidential candidates. Even though <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/ben-carson-running-for-president.html">running for president gives you free access to media</a> and fundraising machines, candidates spend enormous sums on ads across multiple media platforms to build their brands, and they need to protect them. </p>
<p>Moreover, the candidates’ commercials build awareness of the debate series, which then helps the networks sell more ads and drive ratings for all the shows the candidates appear on. With the success of the two players – candidate and media conglomerate – so tightly intertwined, it’s no surprise the GOP performers want more favorable conditions in return for the added value they bring to networks. </p>
<p>Ultimately, if there’s “trust” at work in the age of ratings-driven democracy, it isn’t between the media and citizens they purport to serve. </p>
<p>Rather, the producers and the performers – in this case, the presidential candidates – trust that everyone will follow the rules, generating entertainment for audiences and ratings for advertisers, while protecting the brands of the celebrities who are auditioning for a recurring role in the ongoing spectacle. </p>
<p>And that you can bank on.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50228/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Jordan 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>Debates used to be a public service. Now they’re akin to the WWE – a blend of fiction and reality, with the candidates and networks all adhering to the same script.Matthew Jordan, Associate Professor of Media Studies, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/499782015-10-30T10:41:58Z2015-10-30T10:41:58ZWhy the Republicans’ know-nothing outsider candidates are still on top<p>Former Florida governor and Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush must be wondering what on earth is happening. Wasn’t this a sure thing? Is it all a bad dream? If he clicks the heels of his wingtip shoes together three times and says “frontrunner”, will things go back to how they were supposed to be? </p>
<p>Conservative columnist Jason Russell <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/five-reasons-jeb-bush-will-be-the-next-president/article/2566237">forecast a Bush win</a> as recently as June 2015: “Given what we know now, I predict that Bush will become the 45th president of the United States”. Stranger things have happened – and it’s still in the realm of possibility. But right now Bush is playing catch-up to a couple of strong outsider candidates and one newbie – and obituaries for his campaign are <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/bush-walks-into-rubios-trap-215337">already</a> <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/jeb-bush-struggles/413014/">being</a> <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426236/jeb-bush-marco-rubio-fight-cnbc-presidential-debate">written</a>. </p>
<p>His long-predicted rally in the polls has simply never happened. A <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/27/poll-watch-ben-carson-edges-ahead-nationally-in-timescbs-news-poll/">New York Times/CBS News survey</a> issued on October 27 showed retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson in the lead with 26% of Republican voters; Donald Trump came in second at 22%. Bush didn’t even make it to the third slot, held by Florida senator, Marco Rubio, with 8%, instead tying for fourth with former HP CEO Carly Fiorina on 7%.</p>
<p>It wasn’t all good news for Carson. The poll also revealed “that Mr Trump’s supporters are firmer in their support than Mr Carson’s. A majority of Trump supporters, 55%, said their minds were made up. But 80% of Carson backers said it was too early to say for sure that they would eventually support him.” </p>
<p>Still, it’s obvious the active base of the party has little to no interest in the establishment candidates – and is even outright hostile to them.</p>
<h2>The beer test</h2>
<p>This has been driving Bush to distraction lately. During an October 25 town hall meeting in Charleston, South Carolina, he lashed out: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>If this election is about how we’re going to fight to get nothing done, then I don’t want to have any part of it … I got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around and be miserable, listening to people demonise me and and me feeling compelled to demonise them. That is a joke. Elect Trump if you want that.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/reU6f2XXLHY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>That mix of contempt and self-pity smacks of an entitled sore loser, and it won’t win anyone over. The conservative base has shown again and again that it prefers the regular guy, a part played in the home stretch of 2008 by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o">Joe the Plumber</a>. In the 2000 election, Jeb’s brother George W. was able to play this role in spite of his presidential pedigree; Sam Adams and Roper Starch conducted a <a href="http://www.realbeer.com/news/articles/news-001395.php">poll</a> that revealed (surprise!) that more Americans would like to sit down and drink a beer with Bush than his rival, the buttoned-down, robotic Democrat, Al Gore. </p>
<p>The hard right’s preference for the unvarnished authenticity of a non-politician is especially strong in this year’s campaign, but it’s <a href="http://www.cjr.org/second_read/richard_hofstadter_tea_party.php">not a new phenomenon</a>. In 1837, the New England literary giant Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that: “The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself.” Being unlettered or uninformed in the world of politics or church life is not a liability. Sometimes it’s even an asset. </p>
<p>A recent <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-republicans-prefer-outsider-candidate-121933438--election.html">poll by AP-GfK</a> reveals that “an overwhelming 77% to 22% margin, Republican registered voters say they prefer an outsider candidate who will change how things are done, rather than someone with experience in Washington who can get things done.” These voters also want “someone with private-sector leadership experience over experience holding elected office, 76% to 22%.” You can almost hear a thud as party chairman <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/28/rnc-reince-priebus-trashes-hostile-rubiks-cube-cnbc-debate/">Reince Priebus</a> faints and falls to the ground.</p>
<h2>Rank outsiders</h2>
<p>This fondness for the newbie, the rookie who would shake things up was already front and centre when Sarah Palin was named John McCain’s running mate in 2008. Palin spat in the face of Washington figures, education experts, climate scientists, biologists, and healthcare specialists – and she has continued doing so long after she and McCain were defeated. </p>
<p>At a 2010 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2010/02/06/palin-we-need-a-commander-in-chief-not-a-profes/160170">Tea Party convention</a> she took aim at Obama and his law degree, shouting out to the crowded room: “We need a commander-in-chief not a professor of law standing at the lectern!” And at the start of 2015, she was roundly mocked for a <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/sarah-palin-dishes-bizarre-improvised-rant-iowa-article-1.2091124">rambling, semi-improvised speech</a> where she advised “GOP leaders” that: “The man can only ride you when your back is bent!”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RrzD-zqWwWc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Trump is mining the same rich vein as Palin when he blasts all those eggheads who seem to think they know more than the average man or woman on the street. Maybe <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/09/17/the-origins-of-donald-trumps-autismvaccine-theory-and-how-it-was-completely-debunked-eons-ago/">vaccines do cause autism</a>, Trump suggested in the September debate. His freewheeling Twitter presence offers more where that came from:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"656100109386674176"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"619218062995230720"}"></div></p>
<p>That “plain folk” wisdom appeals to many in the states. According to <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/168620/one-four-solidly-skeptical-global-warming.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_CLIMATE_CHANGE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles">Gallup data</a>, climate change scepticism rose from 12% in 2002 to 25% in 2014.</p>
<p>Trump, Carson and their ilk dismiss or mock the politics and theories of “elites” and decry their critics as propagandists. The “liberal media” canard worked well for Senator Ted Cruz, who rebuked his CNBC hosts: “Let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media.” The crowd roared with approval. Critical questions asked by the CNBC crew were met with loud boos and hisses. “I know the Democrats have the ultimate SuperPac,” said Rubio. “It’s called the mainstream media.”</p>
<p>The populist base of the party is as sceptical of the media and career politicians as it is of expertise in general – and even of the government itself. In 1986, Ronald Reagan famously <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA">derided an incompetent federal government</a>: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’.” Grover Norquist, a Reagan disciple and founder of <a href="http://www.atr.org/">Americans for Tax Reform</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/opinion/05herbert.html">put it more bluntly</a>: “Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub.” </p>
<p>The simple equation remains the same today: government: bad, the private sector: good. So said New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, at the October debate: “Don’t send Washington another dime until they stop wasting the money they’re already sending there.”</p>
<p>But scepticism of grandiose government overreach is one thing and a general resistance to any “elitist” with an “expert” opinion quite another. The expertise of health professionals who support Obamacare, the hard science on global warming, research on the age of the earth and human evolution, the statistics on the <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-08/24/gun-ownership-mass-shootings-us-study">availability of guns and mass shootings</a> – to the base these “facts” are nothing more than politically correct liberal nonsense. </p>
<p>In September, Fox News, the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/like-pravda-covering-chernobyl-fox-news-on-the-murdoch-problems/241875/">Pravda of the right</a>, <a href="http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/09/23/fox-news-poll-outsiders-donald-trump-ben-carson-carly-fiorina-dominating-gop-field">reported</a> that 62% of its Republican viewers felt “‘betrayed’ by politicians in their party” – and it seems they’re duly rallying around the straight-shooting newcomers.</p>
<p>But if this populist trend continues, the GOP base will elevate a candidate who is as incapable of attracting voters as he or she is uniformed. One big-name candidate on the opposite side of the aisle – about as insider as an insider could be – is surely grinning from ear to ear as she <a href="https://theconversation.com/clinton-parries-biden-benghazi-and-bernie-sanders-to-reclaim-pole-position-49527">gets the champagne ready</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49978/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Randall J. Stephens 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 Republican base wants its country back from the “insiders” – by which it means anyone with conventional expertise.Randall J. Stephens, Reader in History and American Studies, Northumbria University, NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/498442015-10-29T04:43:34Z2015-10-29T04:43:34ZScholars on the GOP debate: middle-class struggles take center stage as Rubio walks tightrope<p><em>Republican presidential candidates debated a range of economic issues in their third debate, from what to do about Medicare and Social Security to tax policy and even a brief exchange on daily fantasy sports. The moderators became part of the scrum, and Hillary Clinton and her fellow Democrats took a few bashes, as GOP <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/noise-gop-debate-stage-leaves-republican-race-unsettled-1446086994">contenders strove to stand out</a>. Here’s an instant analysis from three scholars.</em></p>
<h2>Candidates and media spar, but Americans get their moment</h2>
<p><strong>Thomas Kochan, MIT Sloan School of Management</strong></p>
<p>We were promised a debate over economic issues, but what we got for the first hour was protracted sparring between TV interviewers posing gotcha questions hoping to egg on candidates to attack each other and candidates turning the tables by blaming the nation’s problems on a left-leaning media. That was a sorry performance from people on both sides of the microphone.</p>
<p>Yet once they got beyond that part of the circus, the candidates did start to recite some of the big economic problems of the day, including the 30 years of <a href="https://theconversation.com/america-doesnt-just-need-a-raise-we-need-a-new-national-norm-for-wage-growth-46831">wage stagnation</a>; the growing number of women in poverty; the high cost of education; and the financial challenges facing Medicare and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-mathematics-could-help-us-save-social-security-32990">Social Security</a>.</p>
<p>A few ideas for reform came through on a couple of these issues. At least four candidates – John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie – suggested Social Security and Medicare could be stabilized through some combination of raising the ages of eligibility, reducing benefits for high-income earners and retirees, and adjusting benefit formulas for younger workers. Kasich was the most focused on concrete ideas when he proposed using public service to pay down student debt and the expansion of online courses and better links between high school, two-year, and four-year colleges to bring down the cost of higher education.</p>
<p>These Republicans and their Democratic counterparts recognize they have to focus on the issues holding back working families from realizing their dreams. Senator Rubio said it most clearly: if we don’t address these issues directly, the next generation is destined to have a lower standard of living than their parents.</p>
<p>So the good news in tonight’s debate, indeed in this campaign, is that the American public is being heard. </p>
<p>Candidates are getting the message that the next president has to focus like a laser on these economic issues. The question is can we go beyond the personal attacks the media feeds on and insist on getting more thoughtful answers to the problems Americans care about. Perhaps it’s time for the media professionals to catch up with the candidates and start listening to what average Americans want to hear.</p>
<h2>Issues ignored: housing and inequality</h2>
<p><strong>Mechele Dickerson, University of Texas at Austin</strong></p>
<p>Other than the fact that they attacked the moderators more than they attacked each other, perhaps the biggest surprise during the third Republican presidential debate may be that quite a few of them now seem to see that they cannot keep ignoring the middle class. </p>
<p>Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul didn’t attack the Top 1% or hedge fund managers with the fervor Bernie Sanders exhibited during the Democratic debate, and Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio didn’t explain what they would do to solve the problem of stagnant middle-class wages or close the income inequality gap. But they did at least mention the economic woes facing the middle class. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, only one candidate (Paul) even mentioned the housing crisis and it was in the context of attacking Federal Reserve policies. None of the Republican or Democratic candidates seem to understand the link between rising rents and housing unaffordability. Housing unaffordability keeps getting worse, and it won’t improve until we recognize the link between it and income inequality.</p>
<p>This issue, of course, isn’t a problem for hedge fund managers or other highly paid workers who have consistently received raises over the last 30 years. They are not facing a housing affordability crisis. In contrast, as both Republican and Democratic candidates mentioned during their debates, wages have all but stagnated for lower- and middle-income workers. These workers simply can’t afford their rents. And the problem is most pronounced in cities like Memphis and Detroit, where incomes have not kept pace with even modestly rising rents, according to a <a href="https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/which-cities-and-states-have-the-most-cost-burdened-renters/">recent analysis</a>.</p>
<p>The crisis is due to get <a href="https://theconversation.com/americas-rental-affordability-crisis-is-about-to-go-from-bad-to-worse-48143">much worse</a>. More Americans are [being forced to rent](being forced to rent](http://www.urban.org/research/publication/headship-and-homeownership-what-does-future-hold) because they cannot afford to buy a home. At the same time, the share of renters <a href="http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/projecting_trends_in_severely_cost-burdened_renters_final.pdf">spending more than half of their income</a> on housing may soon reach almost one in three.</p>
<p>The income inequality gap and rising housing unaffordability are interrelated and solving them must be one of the top priorities of the next president. Unfortunately, you would not know that we are still facing a housing unaffordability crisis by listening to the presidential debates.</p>
<h2>Marco Rubio walks a tightrope</h2>
<p><strong>Lisa García Bedolla, University of California at Berkeley</strong></p>
<p>Much of presidential campaigning is about symbolism. </p>
<p>In tonight’s debate, Marco Rubio set himself up as the candidate who is about the future and achieving the American Dream. To do this, he had to walk a fine line, emphasizing his youth and his immigrant story, while trying to ensure Republican voters don’t see him as inexperienced and “other.”</p>
<p>In comparison with the other Republican candidates on the stage tonight, Marco Rubio’s relative youth is striking. Rubio’s age was the basis for criticism from Donald Trump earlier in the campaign. </p>
<p>Instead of trying to present himself as seasoned and experienced, Rubio emphasized the urgency of the moment and his hopefulness for the future. By saying he didn’t want to “wait his turn” to run, he implied that what he lacked in experience he made up for in enthusiasm and optimism. Consistent with that message, he refrained from attacking his opponents while still ably defending himself from a direct attack from Jeb Bush.</p>
<p>Similarly, Rubio made a point of presenting himself as an “everyman,” emphasizing his humble origins, his need to pay his way through school, and his awareness of what it means to struggle to support a family. He also referred to his parents’ migration story, connecting that to his support for and belief in the American Dream.</p>
<p>Rubio is running for the nomination of a party that has strong negative feelings towards immigrants in general and Latino immigrants in particular. He is attempting to emphasize his working class roots while espousing economic policies that mainly benefit the wealthiest Americans. And he needs to do both those things while appearing authentic and presidential. </p>
<p>It is telling that his weakest moment in the debate was when the moderator pointed out the contradiction between who benefits from his tax plan and his rhetorical focus on people “living paycheck to paycheck.” The exchange made evident the fundamentally contradictory message he is attempting to package and sell to Republican voters.</p>
<p>Unlike in previous debates, Rubio mentioned his parents’ migration but not where they came from, de-emphasizing his Cuban roots. </p>
<p>With bombastic “outsider” candidates Donald Trump and Ben Carson currently leading the Republican field, it will be interesting to see if Rubio’s youth and migration story allow him to distance himself from Washington or if the contradictions inherent in his message, his story, and immigrants’ relationship to Republican primary voters end up being too much for him to overcome with hope and a smile.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49844/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas Kochan receives funding from the Thomas Haas Foundation for his research. I have contributed personal funds to the Hillary Clinton campaign and provided some informal advice.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Garcia Bedolla is affiliated with the American Majority Project Research Institute, which has conducted research for the Democracy Alliance, a progressively-oriented group of donors. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mechele Dickerson 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>Candidates sparred among themselves and the media but still managed to debate some of the key economic issues that matter most to Americans – though they ignored a few.Thomas Kochan, Professor of Management, MIT Sloan School of ManagementLisa García Bedolla, Chancellor's Professor of Education and Political Science, University of California, BerkeleyMechele Dickerson, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at AustinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/457522015-08-07T10:06:36Z2015-08-07T10:06:36ZFox News debate weak on race, sour on Trump<p><em>Ten of the most popular Republican presidential candidates gathered in Cleveland on the evening of August 6 for two hours clearly designed to be fast-paced and entertaining.</em> </p>
<p><em>It wasn’t a debate, exactly.</em> </p>
<p><em>The three moderators fired off one hard-nosed question after another to different candidates in a seemingly random order. Some questions from Facebook users ran as standalone video clips without being addressed to anyone. Equal time was apparently not a big concern.</em></p>
<p><em>What stood out to American academics watching the show? Mostly the things that were half-spoken or left unsaid.</em></p>
<h2>GOP still clinging to the Southern strategy</h2>
<p><strong>Lisa García Bedolla, UC Berkeley</strong></p>
<p>In the 1960s, the Republican Party launched the Southern strategy – the use of coded racialized appeals to gain white votes. The large proportion of whites who now identify as Republican attests to the strategy’s resounding success. Its continued influence was evident on the stage in Cleveland Thursday.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that Fox’s Facebook monitoring showed that “racial issues” were the top source of conversation among Facebook users this week, the Republican hopefuls engaged in a variety of rhetorical contortions in order not to mention the word “race” or acknowledge the deep, pervasive racial inequalities that exist in US society.</p>
<p>When asked about how to diversify the Republican base, John Kasich talked mostly about economic growth, saying only after you establish growth can you reach out to the “people in the shadows,” including “minority people.” He later underlined the same point by saying how the United States needs to “give everybody a chance” and not “let anyone be behind.”</p>
<p>The only candidate asked directly about policing problems, Scott Walker avoided mentioning the word race, only stating we need to improve police training and “treat everyone the same.”</p>
<p>Rand Paul labeled himself a “different kind of Republican” because he had been to Ferguson, Chicago and Detroit, but he did not say why those visits should be seen as meaningful. Their racial content was implied, not stated.</p>
<p>The only racial group that was mentioned directly was Latinos (specifically Mexicans), who were referenced as “illegals,” drug dealers and murderers who need to be kept out through secure borders and a border wall. As Donald Trump has repeatedly demonstrated, denigrating Latino immigrants remains the one area where direct racial rhetoric is allowed among Republicans.</p>
<p>There was much talk after the 2012 election of the Republicans’ need to appeal to a more diverse electorate. Despite an African American and two Latinos on the stage, Thursday’s debate contained no substantive acknowledgment of or appeal to a broader audience. These candidates are still catering to their white base, holding strong to the Southern strategy.</p>
<p><em>Lisa García Bedolla is Chancellor’s Professor of Education and Political Science at University of California, Berkeley. García Bedolla’s research interests center around the civic engagement, community activity and educational success of ethnoracial groups in the United States. She is author of <a href="http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745664996">Latino Politics</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Trump issues a warning</h2>
<p><strong>Anthony Gaughan, Drake University</strong></p>
<p>Fox News hosted a shallow and unfocused but highly entertaining Republican presidential debate on Thursday night. </p>
<p>The prime-time GOP debate certainly won’t win the Lincoln-Douglas Award for analytical rigor and substance. The candidates largely relied on unilluminating talking points and detail-free promises to balance the budget, defeat ISIS, abolish the IRS, repeal Obamacare and save Social Security and Medicare without raising taxes or cutting benefits. </p>
<p>The Fox debate, however, will likely be remembered for one significant moment: Donald Trump’s warning that he might run as an independent candidate in 2016. That spells big long-term trouble for the GOP. As an independent, third-party candidate, Trump would have the money, the flamboyance, and the name recognition to win 2% or 3% – or more – of the vote in the general election.</p>
<p>That may not sound like a lot, but it would mean a great deal because Republicans have no margin for error. Although Republicans do well in low-turnout midterm elections, the same is not true of high-turnout presidential elections. The GOP has lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. The undeniable reality is that the party’s narrow base of white, elderly, rural and southern voters is shrinking rapidly as America becomes an increasingly diverse, cosmopolitan and urban society. </p>
<p>If Trump runs as a third-party candidate, he could be the Ralph Nader of 2016. In 2000, Nader ran as the Green Party candidate and carried 2.7% of the general election vote. Nader’s support came primarily from Democratic nominee Al Gore’s base of voters. Nader’s presence in the race was particularly critical in Florida, where his 100,000 votes tipped the election from Gore to George W Bush. </p>
<p>In 2016, history could repeat itself, only this time at the Republicans’ expense. Trump’s threat to run as an independent is thus ultimately more important than anything else that happened last night. </p>
<p><em>Anthony Gaughan is an Associate Professor of Law at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. His academic specialties include election law, national security law, and legal and constitutional history. He is a former United States Navy officer and an Iraq War veteran. He is the author of <a href="http://lsupress.org/books/detail/the-last-battle-of-the-civil-war/">The Last Battle of the Civil War: United States versus Lee, 1861-1883</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Where did all the conservative environmentalists go?</h2>
<p><strong>Andrew Hoffman, University of Michigan</strong></p>
<p>The first Republican presidential debate is over and the environment failed to make a showing. What can we make of its absence? For one, the Republican Party has no environmental platform. For another, the party is ceding the issue – and the voters that care about it – to the Democratic Party. This is a major liability. </p>
<p>Candidate <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-24/lindsey-graham-blames-republicans-and-al-gore-for-climate-change-inaction">Lindsey Graham</a> (a candidate in the bizarre <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/factchecking-the-gop-debate-early-edition/">second-tier debate</a> earlier in the day) said as much earlier this year when he lamented,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You know, when it comes to climate change being real, people of my party are all over the board … The Republican Party has to do some soul searching. Before we can be bipartisan, we’ve got to figure out where we are as a party … What is the environmental platform of the Republican Party? I don’t know, either.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a problem for the party of <a href="http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/theodore-roosevelt-memorial/theodore-roosevelt-memorial-hall/tr-timeline-iframes/theodore-roosevelt-timeline-conservation-legacy">Teddy Roosevelt</a>, <a href="http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/theodore-roosevelt-memorial/theodore-roosevelt-memorial-hall/tr-timeline-iframes/theodore-roosevelt-timeline-conservation-legacy">Richard Nixon</a>, <a href="http://www.rstreet.org/ronald-reagans-conservation-legacy/">Ronald Reagan</a> and <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_Bush_Sr__Environment.htm">George H W Bush</a> – all of whom left a profound and indelible mark on the environmental politics of this country. And this seems strange, and even careless, at this particular point in time. </p>
<p>Nearly <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/">200 scientific agencies</a> have endorsed the IPCC consensus statement on climate change. The pope has just issued a <a href="https://theconversation.com/pope-encyclical-on-ecological-crisis-asks-us-to-examine-our-deepest-values-and-beliefs-43514">historic encyclical letter </a>on the issue. Major religious leaders of the world have followed suit. President Obama has just laid out an ambitious <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/opinion/obama-takes-a-crucial-step-on-climate-change.html">Clean Power Plan</a> endorsed by over <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/365-companies-and-investors-throw-weight-behind-epa-s-clean-power-plan-182736279.html">350 companies</a>. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/02/hillary-clinton-promises-to-build-on-obama-climate-plan-as-president/">pledged</a> to support it if elected. </p>
<p>All these events signal the extent to which this is an issue of great importance today and one that matters to a great many Americans, most notably <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/11/07/younger-voters-may-make-climate-an-issue/18633173">young voters</a>. But the Republican Party seems poised to remain on the sidelines.</p>
<p><em>Andrew Hoffman is a Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at University of Michigan.
Hoffman has written extensively about corporate responses to climate change. He has published 12 books, most recently <a href="http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=25621">How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Fiorina the early winner</h2>
<p><strong>Andra Gillespie, Emory University</strong></p>
<p>The first Republican debate lived up to the hype, though probably not in the way that most people expected. </p>
<p>In both debates, the Fox News moderators did an above-average job of directing questions to all the candidates. They also did an excellent job of asking tough questions of each of the candidates, particularly about their obvious weaknesses. And I applaud them for attempting to hold candidates to task when the candidates sidestepped.</p>
<p>I think many people tuned into this debate expecting to see Donald Trump instigate a fight. While we didn’t see a fight, Trump’s performance was revealing and may have a long-term impact on his viability as a candidate. His candor in refusing to endorse a Republican nominee at all costs could affect his support in the long run. In addition, his endorsement of a single-payer health care system will likely ring dubious to many primary voters. Finally, his flippant response to Megyn Kelly’s question about his record on gender sensitivity will likely haunt his political and post-political career.</p>
<p>Carly Fiorina received a lot of positive buzz after the underdog debate, and as one of the “outsider candidates,” she provides a stark contrast to Donald Trump. Where Trump occasionally came across as ill-prepared and inconsistent in his debate, Fiorina was well-informed and prepared. She’s still a long shot for the nomination, though. If Fox News’ post-debate citizen panel represented an accurate cross-section of the GOP electorate, it seems as though Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson benefited more from Trump’s weak performance.</p>
<p>Finally, I have to agree with many television commentators who noted that Jeb Bush gave a flat performance. He clearly has the resources to survive a weak start, but he is going to have to figure out how to capture the imagination of his party.</p>
<p><em>Andra Gillespie is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Emory University. She teaches the undergraduate survey course in African American politics and a course called “New Black Political Leadership.” She is the author of <a href="http://newbooksinpoliticalscience.com/2013/02/08/andra-gillespie-the-new-black-politician-cory-booker-newark-and-post-racial-america-nyu-press-2012/">The New Black Politician</a>: Cory Booker, Newark and Post-Racial America.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45752/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Garcia Bedolla is a co-founder and principal of the American Majority Project Research Institute, which provides research support to organizations and campaigns interested in engaging voters of color in the political process. She is also working with a number of community organizations engaged in voter mobilization efforts in California.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andra Gillespie worked for Democratic pollster Mark Mellman (who worked for John Kerry) during the 2004 election cycle. She is not working for any campaign in 2016. She has provided advice to civil rights organizations about increasing minority voter turnout in 2016. And she maintains friendship with likely Democratic and Republican operatives.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony J Gaughan is a registered Republican. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew J. Hoffman 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>Academics from around the US react to the Fox News debate.Lisa García Bedolla, Chancellor's Professor of Education and Political Science, University of California, BerkeleyAndra Gillespie, Associate Professor, Political Science , Emory UniversityAndrew J. Hoffman, Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise, University of MichiganAnthony J. Gaughan, Associate Professor of Law, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.