Presidential Debates

Watching the presidential debates and especially the fact-checking segments that followed on some stations, it occurred to me that a somewhat different format might be helpful. How would it work if the candidates (1) were each asked a question by the moderator, (2) each answered the question, (3) fact checkers then responded to what the candidates said, and (4) the candidates responded to the fact checkers. Then another question would be asked, answered, fact-checked, and responded to by the candidates. And so on. While this might take a bit longer, it would force the candidates to give more attention to the accuracy of their statements and would surely elevate the level of political discourse.
The current debate format actually encourages the candidates to make statements that are only partially true (or completely false) simply because there is no face-to-face confrontation over their exaggerations and, yes, even lies. Candidates need to be held accountable for their statements—directly and in full view of the voters.

Politically Speaking

If you’re interested in public address, particularly political speaking, take a look at the article, “Reading between the Lines: Word for word, the presidential candidates revealed” by Jay Dixit in the current issue of Psychology Today (August 2007). Analyzed are the speaking styles of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Each candidate is analyzed in terms of rhetorical style, body language, self-definition, emotional tone, political values, and universal values. It’s an excellent article that will make for spirited and stimulating class discussion in lots of communication courses.