Autoenthography
When presenting one’s self as a presidential hopeful, everything from policies to speaking voice is important. It is possible, however, that in accordance with propriety, we have become too caught up with how candidates act, or how they speak, and are not concerned enough with what they want to do, or what they will actually do. In some cases we are not concerned enough with what they have already done, as well. In the cases of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, we find very good examples of this. Throughout their debates over the course of the presidential primaries, we have seen their behavior and its impact on the American public, and while it is clear they have a unique and specific way of behaving in order to get what they want, it is also clear this behavior are not okay.
Concerning Hillary Clinton and debating, the tone of each debate should be one of professionalism and respect. With a female candidate who has come so far in the public eye, not to draw attention away from those who have come before here, it is important to note that equality is also important. Clinton and her opponent, Senator Sanders, are both experienced in politics, public speaking, and debating. They are both well voiced on various issues, and concerning the particular debate that took place February 11, 2016, these important facets of political discussion and debate were maintained throughout the evening. However, as the night wore on it appeared Clinton was not as voracious about critical issues as her opponent, and rather than speak on behalf of the people, per usual, she spoke on behalf of her donors. Sanders gave simple answers that were straight to the point, while Clinton gave long, rambling answers that pandered to the many corporations and billionaires who had, thus far, donated to her campaign. It did little to instill trust in the average American.
While her lack of voracity could have been perceived as a permanent pitfall throughout the night, Clinton did come off as relatively calmer than her rival. While her opponent did appear almost erratic at times as he voiced the will of the people, Clinton answer after answer that elicited an air of rehearsed propriety. Unlike previous debates and encounters wherein Sanders had not even been present, there were not needless attacks toward his character. At this particular debate, Clinton surprisingly stuck to attacking only Sander’s position on issues and stances he firmly held from a political perspective for most of the evening. It is arguable though that her comment toward Sanders about Obama failing the, “presidential leadership test,” could be interpreted as a personal attack. She also called Sanders weak. Rather than stating her own political point of views, stances, or future plans, Clinton made it a point to repeatedly state how close her relationship with the Obama administration had been while she held the position as Secretary of State, as well as how firmly she stood for the Obama Administration’s policies, rather than her own. This has become her primary practice, of which she has used in every debate before and after the aforementioned.
Clinton also has developed a particular defense mechanism concerning debates. Her primary weapon during debates to claim she is a not a single issue candidate, proclaiming in a single sentence she is a multitasker, while simultaneously calling out her opponent for not being able to do more than one thing at a time. For example, Sander stalled the conversation on the Flint, Michigan Water Crisis, and Clinton attempted to shift the conversation by claiming there were more parts working than he realized and it was not a single issue at hand. Clinton follows this, typically, by promising to, “knock down all barriers,” instead of Sanders’ promise to knock down the “simple” barriers of income inequality and institutionalized racism. Normally, her closing statement begins with, “The point I want to make tonight is this” or something similar, and is followed by restating she is not a single issue candidate, reaffirming Sanders is feeble-minded, and stating America has many problems only she can fix. Clinton has also mastered a specific way of talking that may guarantee her success, regardless of how half-baked her idea sound. She speaks with a touch of a southern accent, but always speaks clearly and loudly; her dialect, therefore, is neutral. Nobody is offended by it allowing everybody to be drawn to it. It is standard for American dialect, and in a culture that demands an elitist air out of their leaders, it is likely her dialect will allow her to maintain a stronghold over an opponent no matter what is said, even if he does happen to be more experienced and more intelligent.
Much like Clinton, Trump is also pandering to the stupidity of the masses, albeit in a much more obvious manner. In a particular debate taking place on February 25, 2016, Trump and his fellow running mates cast aside the typical professionalism and respect expected of politicians, businessman, and the like in an effort to cut one another down verbally with vicious insults and attacks that had never been heard from presidential hopefuls before. The entire debate soon devolved into Trump tossing throwing an open water bottle around the stage, and accusing a running mate of possible wetting his pants. Unlike Clinton, who is at least subtle with her attacks and behavior, Trump had no qualms with refraining from calling other candidates by name and instead simply saying, “This guy is a choke artist, and this guy is a liar,” while pointing wildly around the stage.
Many sane people would argue Trump was losing his mind during the debate and in an erratic display of insults needed to be medicated and removed from the public eye. They have evidently forgotten his history in reality television. As a businessman, four Chapter Eleven bankruptcies notwithstanding, and the host of The Apprentice, Trump has begun to understand perhaps not what it takes to run a country, but exactly what it takes to get Americas attention, as well as to get votes. He has managed to develop a keen sense of awareness for what his growing base of voters want in a future president, as well as a future Republican Party and while we may not know his own personal views, he appears to have no issue giving the people exactly what they want.
Underneath the layers of idiocy and incessant backtracking, Trump may be an intelligent man. On the surface, however, he willing attempts to relate to the lowest common denominator despite the fact that he lives a lavish lifestyle complete with butlers, personal drivers, room service, and mail order brides. Using small words that everybody can understand while claiming to have a world class education is something many people who have small vocabularies do; it is known as overcompensation, and Trump is an expert at it during debates. He does what is known as peacocking, wildly flinging answers out that do not necessarily answer the question, and are sometimes primarily accusatory of another candidate, rather than indicative of his own views. These are the typical tools Trump uses in an effort to appeal to his crowd. His strategy does not seem to be that of most politicians, which is to win over those you are losing, but to reinforce those you already have and completely ostracize those who are not with you. One can see during the February debate, as well as other debates that he clearly feeds off of audience attention and is willing to do anything so that continue to adore him. It is likely he was not classically trained as Clinton was in the ways of political debate and success. Rather than create a dialect that was not his, as well as a shield of fake promises, he used his skills developed during his one successful endeavor, reality television, to see him through.
In sum, neither Clinton nor Trump is to be trusted based on their tactics. While they do not act the same, they both exhibit behavior that gives them away for liars almost immediately. Clinton does have the poise and professionalism desired in a president, but it is clear she has bred many of her habits and policies based on those before her. Trump has done the opposite and instead relies on the mass’s love for hysteria, drama, and sometimes utter hatred for those who are different (xenophobia) in order to garner votes. In terms of America, it is upsetting one of these candidates may represent us with this behavior.
Works Cited
"20 Insults from the CNN Debate in 1 Minute." 26 February 2016. CNN Politics. Electronic. 6 July 2016.
"Democratic Primary Debate." 11 February 2016. PBS NewsHour. Electronic. 6 july 2016.
