tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/political-debates-62748/articlesPolitical debates – 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/1952592023-02-06T12:19:57Z2023-02-06T12:19:57ZPoliticians weren’t confident discussing Brexit – my analysis of parliamentary debates shows how<p>We can learn a lot about politicians’ true intentions by paying attention not just to what they say, but how they say it. In speeches and debates, certain words and phrases reflect their commitments to political, social and economic ideas. Through legislation, these ideas ultimately affect people’s lives.</p>
<p>Brexit and its aftermath is a prime case study of this. British people had different ideas about what Brexit would mean for the UK, and voted for or against the idea in a referendum. But the space where Brexit was turned into reality through legal framework was in parliament. </p>
<p>In a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/symb.615">recent study</a>, I examined parliamentary speeches and debates to understand what politicians actually believed about Brexit, and how confident they were in those beliefs.</p>
<p>One way to measure this conviction is to look at the frequency of strong and weak verbs and phrases in speech. Compare these two sentences:</p>
<ul>
<li>I know there is ice cream in the fridge</li>
<li>I suppose there is ice cream in the fridge </li>
</ul>
<p>The first sentence carries much more confidence about the existence of ice cream in the fridge. In linguistics, phrases like “I suppose”, “I believe” and “I know” are known as <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-016-9374-3">epistemic modals</a>, and can be strong, weak or somewhere in between. Politicians (and indeed, many other people) use them to project a sense or lack of confidence when speaking. The phrase “I think” also has a <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.2478/opli-2014-0003/html?lang=en">special role in political speech</a> as a way to assert authority over what is being said. This is unlike its role in everyday speech, when it is often used to mitigate or soften.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/symb.615">my analysis</a> of a series of parliamentary debates on Brexit taking place in December 2018 (a total of 208,152 words), I found that MPs used weak discourse markers more often than when compared to debates about other issues. </p>
<p>To put my analysis in context, I compared it to a <a href="https://doaj.org/article/65158bccd6884073adf0efb5d2f9790f">similar analysis</a> of budget debates in UK parliament in 2010. I found that during Brexit debates, MPs used more weakening phrases such as “I would say” or “I would argue”, or verbs such as “might”, “seem” or “could”, indicating lower levels of commitment in comparison to the budget debates. </p>
<hr>
<iframe title="Strong and weak phrases in parliamentary debates" aria-label="Table" id="datawrapper-chart-CemZZ" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/CemZZ/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border: none;" width="100%" height="231" data-external="1"></iframe>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-12-05/debates/A7A014E4-2CC3-42E4-8732-8270A2BE9BF3/EuropeanUnion(Withdrawal)Act">On December 4 2018</a>, Labour MP Vernon Coaker said: “It seems that a catastrophic failure of leadership has brought us to within a few weeks of when we are supposed to leave the European Union.”</p>
<p>His use of “it seems” is an example of how someone can weaken a statement if they wish to be more careful in their expression. Simply saying “it is a catastrophic failure of leadership” would have been much stronger, but could have triggered stronger challenges or consequences from political opponents or the press. </p>
<p>The results of my analysis indicate that MPs did not appear very confident in what they were saying about Brexit in parliament. This is somewhat surprising, particularly when considering the strong beliefs voiced during the Remain-Leave campaigns, and the potential economic implications of Brexit. </p>
<p>But the high uncertainty around Brexit back in 2018 and the lack of a clear negotiated withdrawal agreement at that time, especially during the heated December debates, could explain this observation. MPs didn’t know how Brexit would play out, and therefore were much less confident in making assertions. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Photo of UK parliamentarians filling the benches in the House of Commons" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507597/original/file-20230201-10037-bz77s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507597/original/file-20230201-10037-bz77s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507597/original/file-20230201-10037-bz77s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507597/original/file-20230201-10037-bz77s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507597/original/file-20230201-10037-bz77s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507597/original/file-20230201-10037-bz77s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507597/original/file-20230201-10037-bz77s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The language used in parliament can tell voters how confident their MPs are about a topic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA images/Alamy</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The will of the people</h2>
<p>One of the only ways that I found MPs (mostly from the government benches) were able to talk confidently about Brexit, and to assert authority in debates, was to equate it with “the will of the people”. </p>
<p>This “will of the people” is a common phrase <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/22/populism-concept-defines-our-age">used in modern populism</a>, and does not account for the nuance of the different views, opinions and needs of “the people” in a diverse society. There are many reasons people may have voted to leave or to remain, and their opinions may have changed since the referendum.</p>
<p>But references to the “will of the people” came up 120 times during the debates I looked at, mostly in combination with strong markers such as “we need” or “I believe” or “I think” to assert authority over what is being said. We can see this with former prime minister Boris Johnson, when he stated in December 2018 that “I think the British people were completely right”.</p>
<p>My findings show that we should not only listen to what politicians say, but also how they say it. Paying attention to the phrases they use (and what they suggest about their level of confidence), will allow us to make more informed decisions when it comes to exercising our right to vote.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195259/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Imko Meyenburg 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>Phrases like ‘I suppose’ and ‘I would argue’ can project a lack of confidence when speaking.Imko Meyenburg, Lecturer in Economics and International Business, Anglia Ruskin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1832622022-05-31T13:32:54Z2022-05-31T13:32:54ZPolitical debates in Kenya: are they useful or empty media spectacles?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463922/original/file-20220518-23-xadjx7.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eight presidential candidates on stage during Kenya's first presidential debate in 2013.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joan Pereruan/AFP via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is a few months to Kenya’s <a href="https://www.theelephant.info/editions/kenya-election-2022/">August 2022 general election</a>. That means it is time for the theatrical, skeleton-revealing spectacle also known as the political debate.</p>
<p>Televised political debates in Kenya started in 2013 and have had a chequered history.</p>
<p>In the first debates, eight presidential aspirants met over two sessions that were broadcast on multiple television and radio stations. The sessions <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2013/2/26/sparks-fly-in-kenyan-presidential-debate">drew in</a> millions of listeners and viewers. </p>
<p>However, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17531055.2013.869929">one study</a> argued that the debates were more a performance that failed to provide the electorate with enough information on which candidate to elect. </p>
<p>In 2017, there was a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iCGy5NYkqo">televised</a> debate between the eight candidates for governor of Kenya’s capital city, Nairobi. They traded barbs, accusing each other of corruption, shady business deals, crime and weak leadership. </p>
<p>The live audience loved it, laughing at the particularly potent allegations. </p>
<p>Nairobi voters eventually elected <a href="https://www.theelephant.info/features/2017/08/07/the-sonkonization-of-nairobi-how-mike-sonko-is-reshaping-city-politics/">Mike Sonko</a>, a controversial, flashy politician whose popularity can partly be traced to his <a href="https://mg.co.za/africa/2021-08-13-the-rise-and-fall-of-mike-sonko-nairobis-matatu-king/">public displays of generosity</a>. These include providing free public services, such as garbage collection, that are otherwise the role of local government.</p>
<p>During the televised debate, Sonko was accused of having a criminal record. Over the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-56269628">course of his five-year term</a>, he was charged with gross misconduct and faced several corruption allegations. He eventually <a href="https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2020/03/sonko-defends-move-to-handover-key-functions-to-national-govt/">handed over</a> the running of key functions in the county to the national government. </p>
<p>Political debates have become part of the election calendar. They are organised, moderated and broadcast mostly by <a href="https://www.citizen.digital/news/kenyan-media-launches-presidential-debate-2022-n293607">commercial news media</a>. These platforms have played a leading role in proposing, organising and broadcasting them.</p>
<p>Their stated intention is to enable citizens to access comprehensive information that will help them decide whom to elect.</p>
<p>As the 2017 Nairobi gubernatorial race showed, a political debate is helpful in presenting candidates to the citizens, and allows some exposure of their backgrounds, plans, possible strengths and weaknesses. </p>
<p>But, useful as the political debate was in subjecting the Nairobi gubernatorial candidates to citizen scrutiny, it was not enough to change residents’ minds about Sonko potentially being a bad bet. </p>
<p>If a debate is the citizen’s primary source of information about the candidates running for a particular seat, that is too much weight for a two-hour event to carry. </p>
<p>Debates are culminating events, held as an election season comes to an end. They cannot replace the electorate’s need for the granular, mundane, day-to-day information about candidates and what they stand for. </p>
<h2>What can go wrong</h2>
<p>Election cycles around the world are seen as tangible evidence of democracy. They allow citizens to elect leaders whose policies, views and experience will enable accountable and useful representation. </p>
<p>In principle, the political debate is a forum to showcase these aspiring leaders’ visions.</p>
<p>It is a lofty goal, however, given that in every general election, the Kenyan voter elects <a href="https://theconversation.com/money-influence-and-heroism-the-allure-of-political-power-in-kenya-177171">six representatives</a>. These are the president, governor, senator, women’s representative, member of parliament and ward representative.</p>
<p>In 2013, the political debates focused on presidential and deputy presidential candidates. The presidential debate was organised and broadcast by leading commercial media houses. The debate between deputy presidential candidates was <a href="https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2013/02/deputy-presidential-debate-thursday-night/">co-organised</a> by a coalition of churches and a private university. </p>
<p>In 2017, more political debates were planned as independent players got involved. </p>
<p>The Kenya Alliance of Resident Associations, for instance, partnered with other organisations to organise a <a href="http://www.kara.or.ke/index.php/2015-01-22-08-51-09/kara-news/261-service-delivery-kara-accredited-as-an-election-observer">series of debates</a> among aspirants for seven county governor seats. </p>
<p>This year, attempts were made to assess the ability of community and local language media to get involved in carrying out debates. The idea was that these forums would focus on bringing together aspiring governors, senators and women’s representatives from more of Kenya’s 47 counties. </p>
<p>Community and local language media platforms tend to provide information for particular geographic or ethno-cultural zones. Their regional reach works for the seats for which they are being assessed. </p>
<p>But the idea has run into trouble, provoking a <a href="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/national/article/2001442764/media-groups-split-on-mucherus-debate-taskforce">spat</a> between sections of Kenya’s mainstream media and the cabinet secretary in charge of information and communication, Joe Mucheru. </p>
<p>The issue revolved around the government’s appointment by <a href="http://kenyalaw.org/kenya_gazette/gazette/volume/MjU4MA--/Vol.CXXIV-No.61/">gazette notice</a> of a working group. They were given the job of assessing the ability of community and local language media to hold political debates. </p>
<p>Beyond the differences of opinion over the setting up of the working group, a number of issues arise. </p>
<p>First, who will accommodate the need for information about MP aspirants in Kenya’s 290 constituencies? Or the thousands who will vie for the 1,450 ward representative seats, particularly just months to the elections? </p>
<p>Second, as dramatic and exciting as the debates are, candidates don’t always participate. In 2017, there were <a href="https://hivisasa.com/posts/video-buzeki-speaks-after-mandago-failed-to-show-up-for-gubernatorial-debate">gubernatorial candidates</a> in several counties – among them incumbent holders of the seat – who <a href="https://karakenya.wordpress.com/2017/07/28/omar-shahbal-face-off-in-mombasa-gubernatorial-debate/">didn’t show up</a>. </p>
<p>That same year, the <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/7/6/kenyas-uhuru-kenyatta-pulls-out-of-election-debates">incumbent president and his main opponent</a> declined to attend their debates, citing event format concerns. This denied citizens the opportunity to ask questions or hear aspirants’ plans. </p>
<p>Third, debates are usually held at the end of the political campaign season. The number of political candidates and the format of debates don’t usually allow citizens to gain sufficient understanding of each aspirant’s agenda. </p>
<h2>Making it right</h2>
<p>As governance researcher John Ahere <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2020.630684/full">observed</a>, democracy in East Africa is nuanced. The appearance of democracy is not always the same as its lived reality. </p>
<p>Citizens are often treated as bystanders in democratic governance – valuable once every five years when aspiring leaders seek their votes.
The rest of the time, citizens have little say over why poverty is widespread, for instance, or why <a href="https://nation.africa/kenya/news/-kenyans-worse-off-under-uhuruto-report--3772824">theft of public resources</a> remains pervasive. </p>
<p>The performance of elected officials, therefore, needs sustained coverage beyond the election. This needs to be done by the media. Once the election is over, there is an opportunity for all media – commercial, community and public – to commit to extensively covering the work of all legislative and executive leaders during their five-year terms of service. </p>
<p>By doing this, news media would be showing its value as an institution within Kenyan democracy, as described by journalism scholar <a href="https://academicjournals.org/journal/JMCS/article-full-text/343D5DF61867">Mwangi Michael Kamau</a>. </p>
<p>Under this scenario, future political debates could cement the electorate’s knowledge of whom to elect. </p>
<p>This would be based on a grounded understanding that as citizens, they are central actors – rather than peripheral observers – in the evolution of their democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183262/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wambui Wamunyu is affiliated with the Kenya Editors' Guild. </span></em></p>In principle, political debates should showcase an aspiring leader’s vision. It’s a lofty goal given their current format in Kenya.Wambui Wamunyu, Senior Lecturer in Media Studies, Daystar UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1677312021-09-10T14:13:19Z2021-09-10T14:13:19ZFederal leaders’ debates rarely have an impact on election outcomes, so why bother?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420509/original/file-20210910-26-1flnqp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C25%2C5767%2C3962&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The five party leaders square off in the English-language debate in Gatineau, Que. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld </span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>“Rare that they change the dynamic. They solidify the partisan vote. The post-debate media can give a bump to the winner, but that flattens out come election day.”</em></p>
<p>So says Greg Schmidt, lawyer, veteran Liberal adviser and former chief of staff to Deputy Prime Minister Herb Gray. Earlier this week, Schmidt shared his shrewd insights with me on the real impact of federal leaders’ debates. </p>
<p>He pointed out that the last debate of true consequence was the showdown between Conservative Brian Mulroney and Liberal John Turner in 1984, when Mulroney’s devastating riposte to his rival that he “had an option” regarding controversial patronage appointments <a href="https://www.policymagazine.ca/the-debate-that-changed-debates/">did real damage to Turner’s campaign</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j64lzExjWSc?wmode=transparent&start=3" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">CTV News.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>University of British Columbia political scientist Richard Johnston, who has been studying Canadian elections for decades, tends to agree. As Johnston <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics">said on CBC recently</a>: “More often than not, (debates) cause a short-term change that is reversed.” That post-debate blip, in other words, is almost never sustained.</p>
<p>In short, leaders’ debates, along with political speeches generally, are perhaps the most over-rated, media-hyped and uber-analyzed events in politics — though they rarely have a meaningful impact on electoral outcomes.</p>
<p>This week’s debates are no exception. </p>
<h2>French debate</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-election-2021/what-stood-out-to-political-analysts-at-the-french-language-leaders-debate-1.5578685">The Sept. 8 showdown</a> was entitled the French-language debate, which is a bit of a misnomer. It would be more accurate to call it the Québec Debate, because issues that might concern the one million francophones who live outside the province weren’t touched upon at all, and never are in this debate.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="The five leaders stand in a row behind their podiums." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420511/original/file-20210910-23-c882kz.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420511/original/file-20210910-23-c882kz.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420511/original/file-20210910-23-c882kz.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420511/original/file-20210910-23-c882kz.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420511/original/file-20210910-23-c882kz.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420511/original/file-20210910-23-c882kz.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420511/original/file-20210910-23-c882kz.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Federal leaders make their points during the French-language leaders debate in Gatineau, Que.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And like most discussions of Ottawa-Québec politics over the past two generations, almost every issue revolved around two basic ideas. </p>
<p>First, Ottawa needs to give more money to the province without any conditions attached. </p>
<p>Second, Ottawa needs to do more to recognize Québec’s distinctness and autonomy in the Canadian federation. </p>
<p>All five leaders tried to convince Québecers that they will do both those things in different ways. But it’s unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the Québec vote.</p>
<h2>English debate</h2>
<p>What about the <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/english-language-leaders-debate-highlights-sept-9-1.6170255">Sept. 9 English-language contest</a>, which could more accurately be called The Rest of Canada Debate? </p>
<p>Prior to this debate, the Ottawa Press Gallery and pundits framed it as vital to the election outcome. After all, they have to cover the debate and therefore have to convince Canadians it’s worth tuning into — and some media also seem to enjoy <a href="https://nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-annamie-pauls-shredding-of-trudeau-on-feminism-and-afghanistan-was-impressive">the role of self-appointed arbiters of who won or lost.</a></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh,and Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole square off." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420512/original/file-20210910-23-1m7w1ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420512/original/file-20210910-23-1m7w1ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420512/original/file-20210910-23-1m7w1ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420512/original/file-20210910-23-1m7w1ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420512/original/file-20210910-23-1m7w1ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420512/original/file-20210910-23-1m7w1ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420512/original/file-20210910-23-1m7w1ka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh,and Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole square off.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet once again, the English debate rarely changes the basic dynamic of the election, and it hasn’t in 2021 either. </p>
<p>No leader was significantly damaged and no leader made any major gains. In other words, the performance of the leaders probably did little more than solidify the support from the partisans who already planned to vote for them.</p>
<h2>Rallying cry speeches have no impact either</h2>
<p>This is nothing new when it comes to both debates and speeches. </p>
<p>Take, for example, the 2006 federal Liberal leadership convention. At that convention, I worked for Bob Rae, who gave by far the best speech of the eight women and men on that stage. Supporters like me were convinced following Rae’s speech that the leadership was his. He came third.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Bob Rae delivers a speech" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420504/original/file-20210910-18-uvv2z2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420504/original/file-20210910-18-uvv2z2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420504/original/file-20210910-18-uvv2z2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420504/original/file-20210910-18-uvv2z2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420504/original/file-20210910-18-uvv2z2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420504/original/file-20210910-18-uvv2z2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420504/original/file-20210910-18-uvv2z2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bob Rae delivers his speech at the Liberal leadership convention in December 2006 in Montréal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(CP PHOTO/Adrian Wyld)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The winner, Stéphane Dion, gave the worst speech that day — <a href="https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/stephane-dion-wins-liberal-leadership">it was so long and rambling that convention organizers had to cut his microphone before he could finish the speech. </a></p>
<p>At the bar after Dion had won, Richard Mahoney, another veteran of many campaigns, said to me ruefully: “Once again we learn that speeches are meaningless in leadership conventions.”</p>
<p>One could say the much the same about most federal election leaders’ debates.</p>
<h2>Oratorical skills no longer valued</h2>
<p>Part of the reason could be that oratorical eloquence and spontaneity are no longer valued or present in our politics the way they once were. </p>
<p>The era of the great Parliamentarian who gives fluent, extemporaneous speeches is long over. Consequently, leadership candidates are rarely equipped to deliver those coveted “knock-out punches” in debates. </p>
<p>Openings to deliver that kind of thrust also almost never happen. As Schmidt told me:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“They aren’t actually debates. They are structured to have the leaders trot out canned platform lines with no genuine debate. Attacks are mostly replies of canned lines. There is no debating of ideas that clash. Viewers get tired of bickering offered as debate. Finally, four/five leaders in one debate is not a debate. The format is a major fault.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The most insightful comment I’ve heard about the English debate wasn’t from a journalist, a political scientist or a pundit. It was from an old friend of mine who tends toward the conservative end of the spectrum.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="Annamie Paul smiles." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420515/original/file-20210910-17-qr4bic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420515/original/file-20210910-17-qr4bic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420515/original/file-20210910-17-qr4bic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420515/original/file-20210910-17-qr4bic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420515/original/file-20210910-17-qr4bic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420515/original/file-20210910-17-qr4bic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420515/original/file-20210910-17-qr4bic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Annamie Paul speaks to the media following the debate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>He concluded that Green Party Leader Annamie Paul, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and BQ Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet seemed the most comfortable in their skins, and the leaders he would most like to have a pint with among the five. But he attributed their relaxed performances to the fact that none of them have any chance of winning the election.</p>
<p>A wise comment indeed that says a lot about the value of leaders’ debates.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/167731/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eugene Lang is a Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute. and an advisor to the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries </span></em></p>Leaders’ debates are perhaps the most over-rated, media-hyped and uber-analyzed events in politics, though they rarely have a meaningful impact on electoral outcomes.Eugene Lang, Lecturer/Adjunct Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, OntarioLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1478312020-10-13T15:38:14Z2020-10-13T15:38:14ZDominance or democracy? Authoritarian white masculinity as Trump and Pence’s political debate strategy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362715/original/file-20201009-17-npc35y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=94%2C74%2C4351%2C2283&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, debated on Oct. 7, 2020. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/this-combination-of-pictures-created-on-october-07-2020-news-photo/1228948059?adppopup=true">Justin Sullivan / POOL / AFP/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After the debate between Sen. Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence, commentators contrasted Pence’s reserved demeanor with the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-debate-fallout-proud-boys/2020/09/30/89dd548e-0334-11eb-897d-3a6201d6643f_story.html">belligerence President Donald Trump exhibited</a> in his debate with former Vice President Joe Biden the previous week. </p>
<p>NPR Congress editor Deirdre Walsh asserted that Pence’s debate style was an “<a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/10/08/921323806/4-takeaways-from-the-mike-pence-kamala-harris-vice-presidential-debate">almost polar opposite of the president’s</a>.” New York Times conservative columnist Christopher Buskirk called Pence “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/opinion/debate-kamala-harris-mike-pence.html">calm, professional, competent and focused</a>,” claiming that he was “in some sense the answer to every criticism leveled at Trump after the last debate.” The BBC’s Anthony Zurcher contended that Pence’s “<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54455637">typically calm and methodical style served as a steady counterpoint to Trump’s earlier aggression</a>.”</p>
<p>These seemingly disparate styles, however, are two sides of the same coin – manifestations of a particular version of authoritarian white masculinity that has taken over the GOP since it became the party of Trump. </p>
<p>Not only do these styles perpetuate sexist assumptions about leadership, they also are fundamentally undemocratic because they try to silence dissent, foreclose debate and curtail the participation of anyone with whom they disagree in our democracy.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362717/original/file-20201009-13-ls3517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Nine photos of President Trump during the first presidential debate." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362717/original/file-20201009-13-ls3517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362717/original/file-20201009-13-ls3517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362717/original/file-20201009-13-ls3517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362717/original/file-20201009-13-ls3517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362717/original/file-20201009-13-ls3517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362717/original/file-20201009-13-ls3517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362717/original/file-20201009-13-ls3517.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">Trump and Pence’s seemingly disparate debate styles conceal similar approaches and agendas.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/this-combination-of-pictures-created-on-september-29-2020-news-photo/1228795862?adppopup=true">Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>An inequitable system</h2>
<p><a href="https://voicemalemagazine.org/ten-must-read-books-white-masculinity/">Authoritarian white masculinity</a> is a version of patriarchal authority that has asserted itself in U.S. politics in conjunction with the rise of Donald Trump. It assumes that heterosexual white men are best suited to leadership and casts political leadership by women and people of color as inauthentic – for example, the “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-obama-birther.html">birther movement</a>” – or threatening – for example, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-justice-department/index.html">lock her up</a>.” </p>
<p>The Trump presidency is, in part, a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07491409.2017.1302257">backlash to the election of the nation’s first Black president and to Hillary Clinton’s nomination</a> in 2016 as the first woman to top a major-party presidential ticket. This reassertion of white patriarchal authority is presented as necessary for the nation’s stability and progress. It’s one way Trump delivers on his promise to “make America great again.” </p>
<p>Authoritarian white masculinity has made a resurgence because it doesn’t only appeal to men. People of all genders can be socialized into patriarchal systems, and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/opinion/lisa-murkowski-susan-collins-kavanaugh.html">white women, in particular, sometimes benefit from their proximity to, and participation in, authoritarian white masculinity</a>.</p>
<p>Where progressive political power aims to expand citizenship, voting and participation, conservative authoritarianism aims to curtail it. As a result, progressive women and candidates of color face a complex set of stereotypes and constraints when challenging the white patriarchy on which the U.S. political system is built. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ui-U394AAAAJ&hl=en">political communication scholar</a> who has <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Woman-President-Postfeminist-Presidential-Communication/dp/1623495555">studied gender and the U.S. presidency</a> for 25 years, I have observed how talented and driven women have been held back from reaching the nation’s highest office by a culture that rewards authoritarian masculinity. </p>
<p>But I also study the rhetorical ingenuity of candidates like Harris, whose ability to navigate an inequitable political system makes them formidable.</p>
<h2>Authoritarian white masculinity as debate strategy</h2>
<p>Trump’s approach to the debate on Sept. 29 was to establish himself as someone who leads through dominance. </p>
<p>CNN reported that he “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/presidential-debate-coverage-fact-check-09-29-20/h_9157f17840971e050e3d006f5b60f6f2">dominated the discussion, talked over his rival, [and] steamrolled the moderator — often without any interruption</a>.” Trump characterized Biden as someone who could easily be “dominated” by what he called “socialists” in the Democratic party. </p>
<p>Trump was unconstrained by either expectations of civility or the rules of the debate. The more disruptive, the better. Drawn in by Trump’s provocations, Biden urged Trump to “<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">shut up, man” and called him a “clown</a>.” Debate observers likened the event to a <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/30/free-press-panel-reacts-first-presidential-debate/3580517001/">schoolyard brawl or a bar fight</a>.</p>
<p>Although some commentators <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-10-07/pence-harris-debate">cheered Pence’s ostensible civility</a> during the vice presidential debate, Pence persistently ignored the rules to which his campaign had assented, speaking past his time limit, refusing to answer many of moderator Susan Page’s questions, and supplanting the moderator’s authority so that he could pose his own questions to Harris.</p>
<p>Pence’s authoritarian masculinity is the genteel version favored in the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/09/us/evangelicals-trump-christianity.html">patriarchal religious and regional communities</a> that compose Trump’s most loyal base: Southern conservatives and white <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-donald-trump-still-appeals-to-so-many-evangelicals-143232">evangelical Christians</a>. During the debate, Pence <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/08/vice-presidential-debate-full-transcript-mike-pence-and-kamala-harris/5920773002/">said</a> it was a “privilege to be on the stage” with Harris and repeatedly thanked the moderator while ignoring her authority. </p>
<p>When Page moved to a new topic, Pence said, “Well, thank you, but I would like to go back to the previous topic.” When she informed him his time was up, he kept speaking as though no one had said anything. When he wanted to interrupt Harris, he placidly insisted, “I have to weigh in.”</p>
<h2>Harris: ‘I’m speaking’</h2>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tXFqTGBty1w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Harris’ response to the vice president’s interruptions were popular with women who have experienced similar rudeness.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Harris refused to be steamrolled. Her gender insulated her from being drawn into a <a href="https://19thnews.org/2020/09/trump-biden-first-presidential-debate-toxic-masculinit/">competitive masculinity display</a>, as Biden was in his debate with Trump. But that doesn’t mean her task was easy. </p>
<p>As noted by Politico, Harris had to “<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/07/how-harris-identity-as-a-black-woman-could-hurtand-helpher-on-the-debate-stage-427307">navigate stereotypes that pigeonhole Black women as angry and aggressive, and less qualified that white men</a>.” </p>
<p>Harris’ strategy was to meet Pence’s authoritarian masculinity with an authoritative assertion of her own: “I’m speaking.” </p>
<p>Without appealing to the moderator to intervene on her behalf, she did what men routinely do: she took up space. She claimed time. She articulated her qualifications. But she was careful to do it all with a smile. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/10/08/nation/mr-vice-president-im-speaking-women-praise-kamala-harriss-response-mike-pences-debate-interruptions/">Twitter lit up as women saw Harris</a> weaving around familiar roadblocks that they routinely encounter in their own lives.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1314016944593555461"}"></div></p>
<h2>Dominance or democracy?</h2>
<p>The “dominance” strategy did not work well for <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-debate-poll/">Trump</a> or <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/harris-pence-vp-debate-poll/">Pence</a>, other than garnering the expected partisan praise. But neither is likely to abandon it. More than a campaign tactic, authoritarian masculinity appears to be baked into their worldviews. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/">Trump’s electoral prospects dwindle</a>, his belief in his inherent entitlement to authority appears to be fostering a host of anti-democratic practices: <a href="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-election-2020-donald-trump-local-elections-lawsuits-4298a514550323d39931f3e5fff2ccae">contesting election procedures to reduce voter participation</a>; <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/mike-pence-kamala-harris-vp-debate-trump-defeat-2020-election-b878896.html">declining to commit to accepting the results of the election if he loses</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/cutting-the-debate-mic-wont-stop-trump-from-short-circuiting-the-democratic-process-147245">sabotaging</a> or <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-debate-trump-biden-virtual/story?id=73496668">boycotting</a> debates. </p>
<p>When Trump told Maria Bartiromo on Fox News that he <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/second-trump-biden-debate-will-be-virtual-organizers-say">planned to stage a rally instead of debating Biden in a COVID-19-safe virtual format</a>, it was revealing. Debates are <a href="https://www.uvm.edu/%7Edguber/POLS125/articles/greenberg.pdf">rituals of democracy</a>, dating back to the <a href="https://www.democraticaudit.com/2016/11/01/concentrating-minds-how-the-greeks-designed-spaces-for-public-debate/">classical Greek agora</a>, flourishing in the <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/the-continental-congress">Continental Congress</a> that birthed the United States, and held up as the ideal form of campaign communication after those made famous by <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/lincoln-douglas-debates">Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas</a>. </p>
<p>Rallies, on the other hand, are authoritarian <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/3/14/11224216/authoritarianism-trump-rallies-violence">political theater</a> popularized by <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/08/03/joseph-mccarthy-and-the-force-of-political-falsehoods">demagogues</a> and <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11275978/trump-dictator-tactics">dictators</a>.</p>
<p>And the attraction of authoritarian masculinity seems to be shared by other Republican politicians. On the night of the vice presidential debate, Sen. Mike Lee posted a <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/10/08/nation/republican-senator-mike-lee-says-democracy-isnt-objective-baffling-tweet/">tweet</a> that implied that something other than democratic governance might be required in order for “the human condition to flourish.” </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1314089207875371008"}"></div></p>
<p>Presidential campaign cycles present voters with the opportunity to think about the expectations they have of political leaders, who those standards benefit and constrain, and how they promote or impede democratic engagement. As such, campaign communication and presidential debates are about much more than political strategy. They build – or break – American democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147831/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>The seemingly different debate styles of President Trump and Vice President Pence are examples of the same thing, what a political communication scholar calls ‘authoritarian white masculinity.’Karrin Vasby Anderson, Professor of Communication Studies, Colorado State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1467262020-10-06T12:18:30Z2020-10-06T12:18:30ZVP debates are often forgettable – but Dan Quayle never recovered from his 1988 debate mistake<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360939/original/file-20200930-22-122jpzo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C0%2C4504%2C2969&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, left, had something to celebrate after the 1988 vice presidential debate. Quayle not so much.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/following-their-vice-presidential-debate-senators-lloyd-news-photo/515429068?adppopup=true">Bettmann via Getty</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you think that vice presidential debates – like the one on Oct. 7 between Vice President Mike Pence and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/12/politics/kamala-harris-mike-pence-debate/index.html">U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris</a> – have no political impact, I have two words for you:
Dan Quayle. </p>
<p>After George H.W. Bush selected the little-known 41-year-old Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana as his running mate, the youthful-looking Quayle <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-debate-quayle-bentsen-20161004-snap-story.html">tried to deflect concerns about his age and inexperience</a> by comparing himself to John F. Kennedy, who also had served as a congressman and senator before running for president in 1960. </p>
<p>Quayle’s handlers told him <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-debate-quayle-bentsen-20161004-snap-story.html">not to bring up the comparison</a> during his only debate with the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Lloyd Bentsen. Unlike Quayle, Kennedy was a war hero during World War II, had won a Pulitzer Prize <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-F-Kennedy/Congressman-and-senator">and had a national reputation</a> when he entered the presidential race.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, when on Oct. 5, 1988, debate moderator Tom Brokaw questioned whether Quayle was qualified to be vice president, Quayle answered, “I have as much experience … as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency.” </p>
<p>Bentsen, a longtime Texas senator, was prepared. </p>
<p>“Senator,” he famously drawled. “I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mind. Senator, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYdHeCAsfVo">you’re no Jack Kennedy</a>.”</p>
<p>Quayle’s expression is frozen in time, the chastened look of a boy sent to his room. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yHtlbZpZUSs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The mic drop moment of the 1988 vice presidential debate.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A cautionary tale</h2>
<p>The Bentsen-Quayle exchange, which features prominently in my new book, “<a href="https://www.chroniclebooks.com/products/the-art-of-the-political-putdown">The Art of the Political Putdown</a>,” remains perhaps the most famous moment in the history of American political debates.</p>
<p>The Bentsen-Quayle debate was <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-06-mn-4515-story.html">viewed by 50 million people</a> in 1988. The Kennedy bit is still available online, billed as the “<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/lloyd-bentsens-mic-drop-moment-1988-vp-debate-58255800">Lloyd Bentsen’s mic drop moment</a>.” That clip will no doubt be discussed and viewed before the Pence-Harris debate, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYAZkczhdMs">as it is every four years</a>.</p>
<p>The disastrous debate moment didn’t actually hurt Bush, who easily beat out Michael Dukakis. But it dogged Quayle, who during Bush’s term was the <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1991-05-08-1991128115-story.html">punchline of many jokes</a>. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts told one that went, “The Secret Service is under orders that if President Bush is shot, they are to shoot Dan Quayle, too.” </p>
<p>Quayle’s legacy is the cautionary tale of how he let himself be defined by that debate mistake.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360938/original/file-20200930-16-xgutfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Bush and a youthful Quayle stand at a lectern in dark suits with red ties" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360938/original/file-20200930-16-xgutfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360938/original/file-20200930-16-xgutfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360938/original/file-20200930-16-xgutfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360938/original/file-20200930-16-xgutfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360938/original/file-20200930-16-xgutfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360938/original/file-20200930-16-xgutfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360938/original/file-20200930-16-xgutfr.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bush and Quayle at the 1988 Republican National Convention.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/vice-president-george-bush-and-senator-dan-quayle-speak-at-news-photo/612578798?adppopup=true">Shepard Sherbell/CORBIS SABA/Corbis via Getty Image</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Quayle never recovered</h2>
<p>One of the lessons of the Quayle-Bentsen exchange is listen to your advisers. Quayle did not. <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/the-mother-of-all-put-downs?context=amp">Bentsen did</a>.</p>
<p>Secondly, Quayle made the worst of a bad moment on national television. He could have restricted the damage of Bentsen’s comeback with self-deprecating humor – like President Ronald Reagan once did. </p>
<p>When Doonesbury comic strip artist Garry Trudeau wrote a strip that took readers on a tour of President Reagan’s brain and found only marbles, Reagan responded by saying, “Cartoonists occupy a special place in my heart. I hope Garry Trudeau will remember that. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/doonesbury/strip/faq?page=22">It’s heart, Garry, not brain, heart</a>.”</p>
<p>When Doonesbury poked fun of Quayle, however, Quayle complained. </p>
<p>“It’s well known that <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=TO83xrkMPPkC&pg=PT2&lpg=PT2&dq=%22garry+trudeau+has+a+personal+vendetta+against+me.%22&source=bl&ots=M-YQEtpZwz&sig=ACfU3U1kGM2Um2fgiDNqRHUaHMgJtyNmYA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUnO2umv3rAhVFaM0KHYRmCCsQ6AEwAXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22garry%20trudeau%20has%20a%20personal%20vendetta%20against%20me.%22&f=false">Garry Trudeau has a personal vendetta</a> against me,” he said. </p>
<p>Late-night comedian Johnny Carson <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616700701504666?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=rjos20">then joked</a>, “That’s the way to get through to Quayle – make fun of him on the comics page.”</p>
<p>When Bush ran for reelection in 1992, Quayle said he was going to be the campaign’s “pit bull” against Democrat Bill Clinton. When asked about this, Clinton laughed and said, “<a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90337494#:%7E:text=During%20one%20of%20the%20Lincoln,Lincoln%20%22two%2Dfaced.%22&text=When%20Clinton%20was%20asked%20for,fire%20hydrant%20in%20America%20worried.%22">That’s got every fire hydrant</a> in America worried.” </p>
<h2>You say ‘potato,’ he says ‘potatoe’</h2>
<p>Quayle himself perpetuated his reputation as a dour lightweight. </p>
<p>In 1992 he attacked <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/arts/television/murphy-brown-dan-quayle.html">television character</a> Murphy Brown, an unmarried news anchor, for having a child out of wedlock. </p>
<p>In response, late-night comic David Letterman looked straight into the camera and told Quayle to pay attention. “I’m only going to say this once. Murphy Brown <a href="https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19920527&id=XFlYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-vkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6872,3919175">is a fictional character</a>!”</p>
<p>Then, in June 1992, during a trip to an elementary school, Quayle corrected a 12-year-old boy who had correctly spelled “potato,” adding an “e” to the word. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/06/21/why-quayles-potatoe-gaffe-wont-fade/b7eecf20-d43f-4781-ab46-9a865df08b58/">American comedians</a> had a field day. </p>
<p>“Maybe the vice president should quit watching ‘Murphy Brown’ and start watching ‘Sesame Street,” joked the late-night TV host Jay Leno. </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>“It was more than a gaffe,” Quayle wrote of the p-o-t-a-t-o-e moment in his <a href="http://www.capitalcentury.com/1992.html">1994 memoir</a>, “Standing Firm.” “It was a ‘defining moment’ of the worst imaginable kind. I can’t overstate how discouraging and exasperating the whole event was.” </p>
<p>Quayle thought the incident got so much play because “it seemed like <a href="http://www.capitalcentury.com/1992.html">a perfect illustration</a> of what people thought about me.” </p>
<p>Dan Quayle was a one-term vice president whose greatest contribution to politics came in a VP debate. In the dog-eat-dog world of politics, no politician since has wanted to end up on the Quayle end of the fire hydrant.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/146726/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Lamb 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 saucy, perfectly delivered retort by Democratic vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen didn’t hurt the Bush-Quayle ticket. But it dogged Dan Quayle for the rest of his political career.Chris Lamb, Professor of Journalism, IUPUILicensed 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/1470782020-09-29T12:33:26Z2020-09-29T12:33:26ZDon’t underestimate the power of the putdown in a presidential debate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360382/original/file-20200928-18-c9kvhf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=42%2C7%2C4721%2C3299&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will either – or both – of these men use humor or insults in their first presidential debate?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2020-Debate-SportsBetting/bef83fc51f3e433098cbd813c6fbfc50/photo">AP Photo</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Before the first presidential debate, President Donald Trump demanded that his Democratic challenger Joe Biden <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-27/trump-says-he-ll-demand-biden-take-drug-test-for-debate">submit to a drug test</a>.</p>
<p>Trump was again suggesting – without evidence – that his opponent takes <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-strongly-demanding-biden-drug-tested-2020-9">performance-enhancing drugs</a>.</p>
<p>If Trump brings this up during the debate, no one should be surprised if Biden has a comeback prepared. Biden’s campaign has already issued a statement on the president’s unusual challenge – “<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/27/joe-biden-trump-debate-422328">If the president thinks his best case is made in urine he can have at it</a>,” said Biden’s deputy campaign manager – but the Democratic presidential nominee has yet to answer himself.</p>
<p>Biden could respond as U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings, a Democrat from South Carolina, did during a televised debate in 1986 with his Republican opponent Henry McMaster, who similarly challenged him to take a drug test.</p>
<p>“Henry, I’ll take a drug test if <a href="https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/the-quotable-fritz-hollings-in-11-verses/article_07ee6482-f41c-11e8-ba17-5f7805fa5530.html">you’ll take an IQ test</a>,” Hollings said.</p>
<p>Hollings won the exchange – and the election.</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>
<h2>A way to have the last word</h2>
<p>In my recent book, “<a href="https://www.chroniclebooks.com/products/the-art-of-the-political-putdown">The Art of the Political Putdown</a>: The Greatest Comebacks, Ripostes, and Retorts in History,” I point out that delivering a comeback can be a potent political weapon, deflecting criticism, hammering home a point and even leaving an opponent speechless.</p>
<p>A politician who wields a comeback with skill can use it as both a bludgeon and a shield, damaging the opponent without hurting their own popularity with voters.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RJxeSVcbBtM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">President Barack Obama frames a comeback to a criticism from Mitt Romney in 2012.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During one of the 2012 presidential debates, Republican Mitt Romney repeated one of his favorite campaign lines – that the U.S. Navy was the smallest it had been since World War I. </p>
<p>“Well, Governor,” President Barack Obama responded, “we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJxeSVcbBtM">game of Battleship</a>, where we’re counting ships. It’s what are our capabilities?” </p>
<p>Obama won the exchange and the election.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K1Q71k6fmts?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Republican candidate Donald Trump zings his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, with a one-liner.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Insults can work</h2>
<p>During the GOP primaries in 2016, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told Donald Trump he could not insult his way to the nomination or “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/jeb-bush-donald-trump-carly-fiorina/index.html">certainly not the presidency</a>.” </p>
<p>But Trump did just that. </p>
<p>Trump produced perhaps the most memorable moment of the 2016 presidential debates when Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton chided him after he called his temperament “his strongest asset.”</p>
<p>“It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” she said.</p>
<p>“<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Q71k6fmts">Because you’d be in jail</a>,” Trump shot back. </p>
<p>The crowd roared – and Trump won the election.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LoPu1UIBkBc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">President Ronald Reagan quashes a key criticism with humor.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Humor is more effective</h2>
<p>Trump’s strategy has a poor record in history. A far better strategy, as President Ronald Reagan exhibited when he ran for reelection in 1984, is humor.</p>
<p>Reagan, who was 73, stumbled in his first debate with Democratic challenger Walter Mondale. He knew he would be asked about his age during the next debate. When the question came, he answered, “I want you to know that … I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPu1UIBkBc">my opponent’s youth and inexperience</a>.”</p>
<p>Even Mondale laughed. Reagan easily won reelection.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147078/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Lamb 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 politician who wields a comeback with skill can use it as both a bludgeon and a shield, damaging the opponent without hurting their own popularity with voters.Chris Lamb, Professor of Journalism, IUPUILicensed 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/1305222020-02-05T18:24:47Z2020-02-05T18:24:47ZCivility in politics is harder than you think<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313794/original/file-20200205-149789-1s6gk1z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=409%2C49%2C5054%2C3587&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tears up her copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/State-of-the-Union/3f5a733be936418587630790c1ceb3f3/23/0">AP Photo/Patrick Semansky</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up the text of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech in full public view, her supporters saw defiance of both his policies and his earlier refusal to shake her hand. But her <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/conservatives-blast-pelosi-tearing-copy-trump-s-state-union-address-n1130531">political opponents cried foul</a>, calling it “unbecoming” and “nasty.” This is yet another example of why U.S. citizens of all political stripes <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/18/americans-say-the-nations-political-debate-has-grown-more-toxic-and-heated-rhetoric-could-lead-to-violence/">agree that politics has become unacceptably uncivil</a>.</p>
<p>People say they want everyone to have cool heads and polite exchanges of views, even during important political debates. Some may even want a return to a kinder, gentler time when <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/politics/senate-dining-room-is-one-more-casualty-of-partisanship.html">Democrats and Republicans ate breakfast together</a> at the same table in the Senate cafeteria.</p>
<p>That’s not realistic, in my view. It is a good idea to stay calm when dealing with other people. But it may be that civility is too demanding, asking too much of passionate human nature. As I argue in my new book, “<a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/overdoing-democracy-9780190924195?cc=us&lang=en&">Overdoing Democracy</a>,” a better idea of civility involves not the total absence of hostility or escalation, but avoiding those extremes unless truly necessary.</p>
<p>The problem Pelosi encountered lies in differing views of when an impassioned act is considered appropriate and when it is an example of incivility. People are prone to see, and complain about, incivility in their political opponents, while being blind to, and silent about, the same flaws in themselves and those like them. And once they spot an opponent being uncivil, they free themselves to retaliate in kind.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313373/original/file-20200203-41490-1vunz7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313373/original/file-20200203-41490-1vunz7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313373/original/file-20200203-41490-1vunz7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313373/original/file-20200203-41490-1vunz7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313373/original/file-20200203-41490-1vunz7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313373/original/file-20200203-41490-1vunz7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313373/original/file-20200203-41490-1vunz7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313373/original/file-20200203-41490-1vunz7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">U.S. Sen. Margaret Chase Smith, left, laughs and shakes hands with a supporter of Barry Goldwater, one of her Republican rivals for the presidential nomination, in 1964.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-Associated-Press-Domestic-News-New-Hamps-/9f3990d177e24972a609b306b851ea0f/45/0">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Passion is appropriate</h2>
<p>Political debates invoke differing ideas of justice and fair play, opportunity and oppression. When disagreeing about these things, people tend to see one another as not merely mistaken but actually in the wrong. Heat and fervor are to be expected when important matters are in dispute.</p>
<p>Indeed, a louder voice or sharper tone are sometimes necessary in order to communicate the urgency of the issue under discussion, and to grab the attention of those who might be inclined to overlook it. </p>
<p>It can even be appropriate to antagonize a person, especially if they are powerful and locked into their prejudice. For this reason, political satire and mockery are within civility’s bounds. But it’s always better to be restrained, since civil antagonism can quickly shift into, or at least be seen as, intimidation and harangue.</p>
<h2>Context matters</h2>
<p>Properly understood, civility is more a matter of a person’s internal mood than of their directly observable behavior. When judging someone to be uncivil, it’s not necessarily the person’s aggravated tone or excessive volume, but how appropriate it is for them to speak that way in the given moment.</p>
<p>So determining civility means judging a person’s character and motives. But when it comes to people who disagree with us, humans are remarkably poor judges. </p>
<p>A recent study shows that people generally regard those <a href="https://www.people-press.org/2019/10/10/partisan-antipathy-more-intense-more-personal/">with opposing political views</a> to be untrustworthy, close-minded, dishonest and unpatriotic. Unsurprisingly, people tend to blame their opponents – not themselves or their allies – for the incivility that has spread throughout politics.</p>
<p>Similarly, people’s assessment of political behavior <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9313-9">sticks closely to partisan allegiances</a>. People tend to approve of what their side does, and disapprove of the actions of the other side. This is true even when both sides do the same thing. So if a political ally engages in potentially objectionable political behavior, like stealing the opposition’s campaign signs, people tend to be more forgiving than when an opponent does the same thing.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313793/original/file-20200205-149742-quynwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313793/original/file-20200205-149742-quynwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313793/original/file-20200205-149742-quynwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313793/original/file-20200205-149742-quynwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313793/original/file-20200205-149742-quynwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313793/original/file-20200205-149742-quynwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313793/original/file-20200205-149742-quynwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313793/original/file-20200205-149742-quynwl.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">Lately, when senators eat together – like Democrat Claire McCaskill and Republican Jeff Flake did in 2018 – it’s more likely to be for political purposes like fighting political ‘pork’ than interpersonal connection.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/senatormccaskill/25009263767/in/photostream/">Sen. Claire McCaskill/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A vicious cycle</h2>
<p>Civility is a two-way street, an obligation between two people. It’s like the playground rule of keeping your hands to yourself, which still lets you defend yourself against an attack. Kids have to keep their hands to themselves, so long as others do the same.</p>
<p>So people tend to be overly sensitive to apparent incivility from opponents, and often feel free to respond with incivility themselves.</p>
<p>The result is tragic. People across the political spectrum agree that <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/18/americans-say-the-nations-political-debate-has-grown-more-toxic-and-heated-rhetoric-could-lead-to-violence/">incivility is poisonous</a>. However, rebuilding civility requires people to trust their political opponents and believe they are well-intentioned and willing to reciprocate. </p>
<p>Partisan divides have rendered many Americans nearly incapable of regarding their rivals in so positive a light. Civility might be practically impossible today. At the very least, it is more difficult than many people suppose, because of the human tendency to feel contempt, not compassion, for opponents.</p>
<p>[ <em>You’re too busy to read everything. We get it. That’s why we’ve got a weekly newsletter.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybusy">Sign up for good Sunday reading.</a> ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130522/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert B. Talisse 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>It’s easy to perceive a political opponent as being uncivil – and that opens the door for an uncivil reply as well.Robert B. Talisse, W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy, Vanderbilt 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/1252022019-10-14T14:21:44Z2019-10-14T14:21:44ZPresidential ‘debates’ aren’t debates at all – they’re joint press conferences<p>Democratic presidential contenders gathered Tuesday evening in Ohio for the latest in a series of televised question-and-answer sessions in the lead-up to the 2020 primary season. </p>
<p>These sessions <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/democratic-debate-on-tuesday-features-a-surging-elizabeth-warren-and-a-recuperating-bernie-sanders-2019-10-12">are called debates</a> by their sponsors and the participants. But are they really?</p>
<p>Presidential debate scholars have long lamented that presidential debates are not really debates at all, but canned mini-speeches at what amounts to a joint press conference. </p>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.cengage.com/c/argumentation-and-debate-13e-freeley/">authors Austin Freeley and David Steinberg</a>, “Debate is the process of inquiry and advocacy, a way of arriving at a reasoned judgment on a proposition.” The literature on what constitutes that process is wide and varied, but there are widely acknowledged essential elements in that process.</p>
<h2>Engage and argue</h2>
<p><a href="https://as.vanderbilt.edu/communication/people/john-p-koch/">I am a communications scholar</a> who directs the debate program at Vanderbilt University. Here’s what I teach my students about debate. </p>
<p>First, the process involves participants engaging each other on a specific topic. They must answer and question each other’s arguments.</p>
<p>Second, it involves arguments for and against a given proposition related to a topic. For example, college debaters may debate a proposition such as: The United States federal government should substantially increase statutory restrictions on the war power authority of the president of the United States. </p>
<p>Finally, these arguments occur within an agreed-upon format that gives participants a chance to advocate for and defend their opinions. Format considerations that encourage direct argumentation and engagement include time limits, the ability to offer a rebuttal to an opponent’s arguments and cross-examination by participants.</p>
<p>If this all occurs, then an audience can potentially reach a reasoned judgment on the topic.</p>
<p>These are the essential elements of a debate. </p>
<h2>Lack of specifics</h2>
<p>Yet in the presidential debates of the last half-century, rarely are specific propositions presented as the focus of the debate. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/rhetorical-studies-of-national-political-debates-1960-1992/oclc/607729900">Presidential rhetoric expert Theodore Windt</a> says that in the 1960 presidential debates, “The candidates wanted only broad topics to be discussed… They did not want to debate specific propositions of policy… They would not really debate, either in format or form, but would answer questions from journalists about a wide range of topics.” </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">John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon’s 1960 debate lacked focus on specifics.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That lack of focus has persisted to this day. So presidential debates are not really debates because presidential candidates answer wide-ranging and broad questions, not specific propositions.</p>
<p>And because candidates are answering questions from journalists, <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/presidential-debate_b_1733127">they are often not engaging each other</a>. Instead, they focus on responding to the moderator and playing to the audience. </p>
<p>For instance, MSNBC co-moderator Savannah Guthrie asked candidates at the June 27, 2019, debate, “Raise your hand if your government [health care] plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.” That kind of question focused on engagement between candidates and the moderator, rather than between candidates.</p>
<p>The end result of these now-normalized conventions is that they make it hard to deeply discuss serious issues. Instead, this kind of format promotes the use of candidates’ focus-group tested messaging, “<a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498515610/Political-Election-Debates-Informing-Voters-about-Policy-and-Character">one-liners and canned mini-speeches</a>.” There is little back and forth between candidates. Viewers hear monologue, not debate.</p>
<h2>Critical thinking</h2>
<p>One of the assumed benefits of Western-style debate is that it is educational to those listening. <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2015.994905">Research shows that viewers do learn</a> about candidate platforms during debates. </p>
<p>However, learning more about candidate platforms isn’t always the same as learning more about the pros and cons of a given issue or approach.</p>
<p>In short, this style of presidential debates may help voters identify which candidate shares their views, but they do not help them think critically about those views.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125202/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>Debates may help voters identify which candidate shares their views but they do not help them think critically about those views. That’s because presidential debates don’t live up to their name.John P. Koch, Senior Lecturer and Director of Debate, Vanderbilt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1205472019-07-22T11:59:34Z2019-07-22T11:59:34ZTwitter is right to have special rules for Donald Trump – it’s recognising that not all tweets are equal<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285115/original/file-20190722-11343-14bneql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/milan-italy-august-10-2017-donald-703259578?src=dDMusl7_dZW4Vfq6JC9B7A-1-2&studio=1">Casimiro PT/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48791094">Twitter recently decided</a> that rule-breaking tweets from influential politicians would be hidden behind a warning. Journalists were quick to label the new policy the “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/27/twitter-warning-labels-tweets-violate-site-rules">Trump rule</a>”. But it wasn’t long before the rule was put to the test and found lacking. </p>
<p>Recent tweets by Donald Trump, which have widely been condemned as racist, were not hidden, and Twitter <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/trump-twitter-aoc-ilhan-omar-rules-racist-ocasio-cortez-tweets-a9006286.html">declared they</a> didn’t violate the company’s policies.</p>
<p>The internet is often hailed as a democratic space, offering opportunities to everyone to contribute to public debate. Twitter’s new rule now introduces a two tier system, with the political influencers treated differently from regular users. Does this make sense or should the same standards apply to everyone on social media?</p>
<p>To shed light on this issue we can turn to ideas of one of the most eminent philosophers of the 20th century: John Rawls. While Rawls is best known for his <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/A_Theory_of_Justice.html?id=b7GZr5Btp30C&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false">Theory of Justice</a> (1971), he also wrote extensively on the rules that should govern political debate and the public justification of political decisions.</p>
<p>Of course, our political world has changed very significantly since Rawls’ time. A significant portion of political debate has now moved online, to platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. This move has had profound effects on the way in which political issues are debated and on how democratic institutions operate. The question of what a healthy public debate would look like in a democratic society remains the same, however.</p>
<p>Twitter justifies its new policy as an attempt to protect “the health of the public conversation”. <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/publicinterest.html">On its blog</a>, the company explains that it sees the contributions from politically influential figures as especially important in this regard. “By nature of their positions these leaders have outsized influence and sometimes say things that could be considered controversial or invite debate and discussion. A critical function of our service is providing a place where people can openly and publicly respond to their leaders and hold them accountable.”</p>
<p>Rawls’ views about a healthy sphere of public debate lends support to policies that single out the contributions from influential political figures. In his book <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Political_Liberalism.html?id=vXGZRYCkaNsC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false">Political Liberalism</a> (1993), Rawls proposed a concentric circles model of the public sphere, with those closer to the political decision-making process positioned closer to the centre. He used this model to argue that the sphere of public debate is not a level playing field. The closer a contribution to public debate is to decision making, the more important it is that it complies with responsible standards.</p>
<p>Rawls’ focus was on the place of religious views in the political sphere. He thought that upholding freedom of religion and the freedom to voice even very controversial ideas was of particular importance in settings that are not closely linked to political decision making, for example in the context of a family or a church gathering.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285116/original/file-20190722-11339-d28s2q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285116/original/file-20190722-11339-d28s2q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=226&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285116/original/file-20190722-11339-d28s2q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=226&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285116/original/file-20190722-11339-d28s2q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=226&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285116/original/file-20190722-11339-d28s2q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=284&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285116/original/file-20190722-11339-d28s2q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=284&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285116/original/file-20190722-11339-d28s2q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=284&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The new rules try to balance freedom of speech with tackling bad behaviour.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/multicultural-group-young-people-men-women-651146170?src=xDGmRWJm5_cHG2SACCDkCg-1-11&studio=1">pathdoc/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Contributions to political debate, by contrast, should aim to avoid being based on very controversial assumptions and should conform with core democratic commitments to the equality and liberty of all citizens. Government representatives and candidates for political office should exercise special care in upholding these standards, for example when defending a particular political decisions or policy proposals.</p>
<p>The focus of the new Twitter policy is different. It is concerned with balancing respect for the demands of freedom of speech with respect for its rules against abusive behaviour. Because it allows tweets that violate its rules to remain accessible, the policy as it stands is even at risk of further watering down the standards that apply to the contributions of influential political figures. The recent controversy over <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/15/tech/twitter-trump-racist-tweets/index.html">Trump’s racist tweets</a> shows just how much more needs to be done.</p>
<p>But insofar as the new policy aims to manage the special status of social media contributions by influential political figures, it is a step in the right direction. More ambitious attempts to protect the health of political debate will hopefully follow. And Rawls’ model remains helpful in this regard, as it allows us to grasp why it makes sense to subject different social media contributions to different standards.</p>
<h2>Upholding political standards</h2>
<p>Many contributions on social media, even if they are very widely shared, occur in contexts that are quite removed from political decision making. If you use social media to post a picture of your <a href="https://www.instagram.com/iconaccidental/?hl=en">outfit of the day</a>, for example, the standards of responsible political decision making are of limited use to guide what you should post.</p>
<p>Other contributions to social media are more directly political. Among them are general contributions to political debate, for example a discussion about Brexit in a large group of Facebook friends, or <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/metoo?lang=en">#metoo</a> or <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/blacklivesmatter?lang=en">#blacklivesmatter</a> tweets. But also among them are those posted by representatives of government or candidates for political office, that is by people with especially close links to political decision making.</p>
<p>Because a healthy sphere of public debate is a key feature of a well-functioning democracy, both types of political contributions should aim to uphold, not undermine, the standards of responsible political decision making. But for contributions from influential political figures, this is especially important. Because their posts carry so much weight in both public and political debate, they pose a much greater threat to both.</p>
<p>For this reason, special rules for Trump and his fellow world leaders make sense. But we need social media policies that can really deliver this.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120547/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fabienne Peter 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>We can justify different standards for different Twitter users by turning to the philosophical ideas about public debate.Fabienne Peter, Professor of Philosophy, University of WarwickLicensed 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.