Rude But Not Crude: a Recipe for Better Political Debates

RUDE BUT NOT CRUDE: A RECIPE FOR BETTER POLITICAL DEBATES
Tues. October 11th, 2022

 

This is a suggestion for better political debates.  Consider this situation.  Politician A makes a statement.  Then Politician B (of the other political party) tries to show why Politician A's statement is wrong.  Then politician A repeats their original statement.  Some news commentators seem to believe that Politician B is now in an impossible situation -- in other words, they believe that you can't win a debate against a person who keeps making the same point over and over again.

My counterclaim is that after Politician A has repeated himself, Politician B needs to think like a lawyer.

I've never been to law school -- not even for a small part of a semester -- but my impression is that an important part of lawyer training is on how to discredit witnesses -- how to make witnesses for the other side look bad.

That kind of training should be very helpful in a political debate.  I think the key for a lawyer trying to discredit a witness, or a politician trying to make an opponent look bad, is RUDE BUT NOT CRUDE

Here is my suggested solution for Politician B:

Politician A: [makes a statement].

Politician B: [tries to show why Politician A's statement is wrong].

Politician A: [repeats original statement and ignores Politician B's argument].

Politician B: I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY YOU'RE WRONG, BUT I''LL EXPLAIN IT AGAIN.

Saying "I've already explained why you're wrong, but I'll explain it again" is extremely rude.

In an ordinary conversation, saying "I've already explained why you're wrong, but I'll explain it again" would be a disaster.  You would immediately lose the support of everybody in the room.

Even if there wasn't anyone in the room except you and the person you were talking to, you've made an enemy for life.

But a political debate is no ordinary conversation!  A lot rides on a political debate.  Each candidate is trying to get a message across to the audience -- causing a general picture of what each candidate believes to dwell in the minds of listeners.  And for best results, an accurate general picture!

In the modern analysis, part of getting a message across is called "creating separation."  That might have started as a football metaphor -- first dodging to get your lead started, and then running faster than the guy who is trying to tackle you.  But in politics, it refers to creating a clear picture in your listeners' minds of how you are different from the other candidate, in terms of what you will vote for, or try to accomplish, if you are elected.

Now I'll try to show why being rude but not crude will help a politician to get their message across, and create separation.

Notice how "I've already explained why you're wrong, but I'll explain it again" is rude but not crude.

1 -- You haven't used any crude words.
2 -- You haven't used an ethnic slur, or an English word commonly used to criticize a specific group of people based on a disability, or based on any other thing  not directly related to your audience's political opinions.
3 -- You have forcefully criticized your opponent's behavior, but you didn't attack their character.

I've already suggested that saying "I've already explained why you're wrong, but I'll explain it again" in almost any other situation is completely useless, and extremely counterproductive.

But it is not useless, and not counterproductive, in a political debate.

In a political debate, saying "I've already explained why you're wrong, but I'll explain it again" means "My opponent doesn't know how to come to grips with other people's ideas."  You're implying: All my opponent can do is to repeat himself.  He doesn't know how to respond to what I've said, and he doesn't know how to strengthen his position by adding supporting arguments.

Here's the really interesting thing: I believe that almost every citizen knows, instinctively, that showing that "My opponent doesn't know how to come to grips with other people's ideas" is an extremely serious criticism, when we are talking about people who want to be leaders.

People know, instinctively, that a person who doesn't know how to say why their ideas are better than the other candidate's ideas cannot be an effective leader.

Leadership is partly about applying force, and using good tactics.  But when leaders are elected, leadership is also about using words to explain why your ideas are better than your opponent's ideas.  If citizens have a choice between a candidate who is forceful but also good at telling you why their way is the best way -- on the one hand -- and a candidate who is forceful, but not good at telling you why their way is the best way -- on the other hand -- then citizens  will vote for the first candidate, the one who is forceful but also good at "building consensus" as people put it.

If you are one of the candidates, your job, as a debater, is to trigger that impression in your listeners -- the impression "My opponent doesn't know how to come to grips with other people's ideas."  In the little scenario described above, a lot is riding on Politician B's second turn in the debate.  In Politician B's second turn, the best strategy is to be rude but not crude.  Don't say "My opponent doesn't know how to come to grips with other people's ideas."  Instead say, "I've already explained why you're wrong, but I'll explain it again."  Explaining why the other guy is wrong is an important leadership skill.  If you can show people you have it, they will say you were rude but not crude, and they will support you enthusiastically.  Citizens can use newspapers and television to diagnose that you will not be rude to ordinary citizens -- you will only be rude to your opponents in a debate, and even then rude but not crude.

But you have to get the message across yourself.  If you are a candidate in an election, you cannot pay someone else to do it for you.  Paying other people to express your opinions -- especially angry voice-actors!! -- is not a leadership skill.

Frank Newton