by Laura Lai/Comment
During the debate, Donald Trump talked to the moderator and to Biden. But Joe Biden talked to the moderator, very little to Trump and more with the viewers. Joe Biden was probably advised by his campaign staff to look straight at the camera, point with his finger and address himself directly to the voters either by asking them something or by saying ‘he has no intention to make it better for you all at home.’ He does that several times during the debate. It is part of the campaign technique to be more convincing that a candidate fights for the voters, while Donald Trump did not do that not even once.
Yes,
I think he should do that, too, because each of them wants to be President in
the best interest of the American people, each of them the way he understands
it. For example, Trump tried to condemn ‘white supremacy’ saying ‘boys stand
back’, as Biden condemned ‘violence’ when invited to say ‘law and order’. Not
all Republican voters are rejecting science on environmental issues, and the
Administration seemed to have realized that and made some steps on the
environment direction. The mask has become a state-policy during this pandemic,
it is a winning point that Trump brought it with him and showed that he wears
it, when necessary. Obviously, the recent news on the President and the First
Lady being infected with the new virus COVID-19, showed that he did not wear it
as necessary as he should have, but the fact that he had it with him as an
electoral effect was a good idea. It reminded me of Boris Johnson campaigning
to be the UK Prime Minister, who brought a fish with him to support his
argument against the European Union and the Common Fishery Policy. The issue of
taxes brought up by Joe Biden could not be worked out during the debate – this is
understandable. But there are two more debates to come, on the 15th
and on the 22nd of October 2020.
Almost simultaneous with the Presidential debate in the United States, New Zealand organized in Auckland the debate between Jacinda Ardern, the current (socialist) Prime-Minister running for a second mandate and Judith Collins, the representative of the National Party. [3] New Zealand is holding on October 17th the elections scheduled for September and postponed afterword to avoid the spreading of the new virus. Elections are held for the position of Prime-Minister, because as in the case of many countries former colonies of the British Empire and current members of the Commonwealth, the position of head of state is still symbolically conferred to the Queen. It is the case of Canada, for example, but not of the United States – both former colonies of the British Empire.
The
debate in New Zealand was also organized on policies of interest for the New
Zealanders voters, and it got positive echoes in the international press [4]
as an example clashing over policies and arguing for them, as well as for the
mutual complements and laughter. Jacinda Ardern is known to have declared that politics
should be ‘something fun’ rather than a ‘blood sport’.
The
debate’s atmosphere in New Zealand was different than the one in the United
States. No doubt! I would not rush to call it a difference of culture or
difference of mentality. What was it then? To me, it was first and foremost,
two men competing on the one side, and two women competing on the other side. It
means that there are automatically a different stand and a different behavior. If
Jacinda and Judith complemented each other is because the moderator, Patrick Gower,
invited them to do so. I particularly found original the invitation of Patrick
Gower that each of the candidate to identify themselves with … a tree. On this
occasion, Ardern mentioned the Pohutukawa (a tree with red flowers) and Collins
mentioned the Kowhai (a tree with yellow flowers). That is what I was saying:
two women, who chose flowers… two trees with flowers. Would men choose a tree
with flowers? In a formal discussion, most of them probably would. In practice,
after drinks, some choose the bushes.
All in all, in any debate the essence is the argument. The constant interruptions of Joe Biden by Donald Trump show that the current President lost sight of the fact that he is in a formal and live broadcasted debate. In an informal discussion, in which he had to discuss with his business collaborators to react first and to acquire first a certain product on the market, interruptions only prove that one deals with prepared collaborators that can answer quickly any question. Similarly, in a class, when a student is cross-examined by two teachers, the student must be quick, reply quickly and interruptions welcome and they are part of the conversation that otherwise is very appreciated and the student gets a high grade – yes, I speak from my experience. In formal debates though, the constant interruptions may disturb the viewers, but I would not call it a ‘chaos’ either. It was an ‘interesting’ debate, as Chris Wallace said it at the end, in which the different stand on different policies between the Republican and the Democrat sides were clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment