The New York Sophist

A return to the standard formulation of political speech at the highest levels of government seems to be the message I got from yesterday’s event.

Was this a victory speech? It didn’t feel like it. It felt more like a return to the familiar and comfortable structure and cadence of professional political speech.

From my point of view, there’s nothing really exemplary or exciting about either of these speeches. They were showcases of the traditional tropes and forms you’d expect to hear from the new President and VP elect. It was a “greatest hits” of these tropes and figures, reminding me of so many previous addresses by so many other candidates.

This doesn’t mean the speeches were “bad” – they were just expected. And I’m really feeling the lag from four years of the irony that Trump provided: Every Presidential-level address you’d expect to be totally crazy, unhinged, and well – all over the place.

Novelty is a dangerous thing in speech as it can train the audience to always be looking for that novel move or content instead of what you might want them to do, and also it creates a short memory for your addresses. For Trump this works out great as he has very little in terms of policy development to offer. For Biden, novelty would be a huge threat to his policy initiatives. Harris too.

Returning to the comfort of bland political speech probably felt comfortable to most who watched and heard the speeches. It felt like there were again guideposts or guardrails in national politics. These speeches could be classified as a “return to normalcy” which might be something critics would say is totally called for. It’s also on brand for speeches that are supposedly victory speeches (although these did not feel like victory speeches for a lot of reasons in the context).

Here are the things that the speeches did that I thought were valuable:

1. Provided a sense of comfort in the articulation of a return to “normalcy” in the way they were structured, delivered, and the combination of delicious flavors we haven’t had in a while (imagine returning to grandma’s after a long absence).
2. Marked the exigency of the ballot counting being over and that the result was official and legitimate (necessary given the floating arguments about corruption without anchor point).
3. Marked the historic moment of a non-white woman about to occupy the office of Vice President. What does this mean? What will it mean? This is in order in terms of “victory” speeches (perhaps the most victory moment there) in terms of epideictic rhetoric, the only irony in the speech is that this radical historical moment was handled with very traditional, Aristotelian gloves even in terms of public address! Again not a flaw, but something to notice.

Here are the concerns I have about the speeches:

1. Reliance on the trope that we need to come together as a nation is dangerous; it was aimed at a very different America. This argument needs to alter to consider: Social media, obsession with facts as the only/ultimate arbiter of political discourse, 24 hour for-profit cable news that is partisan, and the coronavirus. Why was this not a theme of examination for both speeches? Dangerous as it address nobody except the blind Biden faithful (who will read it as “yes we won, you have to accept it” – coming together for them is nothing short of agreement). When old tropes come back around they need to be introduced or at least not show up in their 90s haircut like last night.
2. No suggestions on how to rhetorically navigate the upcoming litigation. Perhaps ignorance is not just bliss, but a good strategy – if these cases are illegitimate, should it appear in a speech? This is a great question. In my mind, ignoring the upcoming challenges might not have been smart. What would have been great here would have been a reference to “situations” where “devisive” forces might try to discredit the “accomplishment” that we “all share tonight.” Something like that would have been all that was needed, but ignoring the speculative utterances of the Trump campaign in totality just legitimizes the claim of theft from people who are sympathetic to the idea.
3. Related to this is that there’s a looming run-off election in Georgia that the upcoming Biden administration has a lot riding on. I wonder why there were not attempts to connect yesterday’s speeches about the future direction of the nation, the transformative spirit of the future, and the lofty goals and dreams of Americans in the same terms that the Georgia race for Senate was couched. They are obviously capable of this: Recall the many specific references to fracking in both the VP debate and Presidential debates. That’s too specific for my tastes for this need, but still, why not angle it a bit more? Contextualize this win in the terms of the changes we all feel that are happening to us (and also, because of us, but at the same time are inevitable no matter what we do – it’s a nice twist!).

I guess now that I’ve typed it all out, it seems to me that the speeches yesterday were a rhetorical success? I really don’t feel that way. I think the most important thing that will have to be overcome is the lack of Trumps dynamic style and clipped mode of public address, which people have come to associate with a President who is active and involved, and most importantly not a professional politician. It’s a significant challenge, and I’m pretty sure Biden and Harris will have several good ways of addressing this. But for the faithful and the haters, there’s little that could be done to change either opinion on them. That might be the biggest challenge yet: How to recover the value of changing up one’s mind.

This amazing op-ed from history professor Jack Rakove is perhaps an attempt at a liberal “take down” of originalism, but winds up being a pretty good defense of an originalism that we could all support: What were the topoi and commonplaces of the debates around constitutional issues? What sort of metaphorical connections can we make to those commonplaces and topoi today? How do those arguments interact and guide us for the creation of our own reasons in support of various laws and rights? Most importantly, can a debate – not the result of a debate – be used as compelling proof for something?

Of course none of this came out in the hearings for Judge Barrett. Mostly because the people we elect to the Senate are incredibly stupid, power hungry people who do not approach the world, let alone any issue, as a complex text that invites ongoing encounter and regular reiteration of meaning. Even if an issue feels or seems unassailable, it is good to practice the reasons why, and practice them in terms of language – articulating them orally for audiences.

Originalism was pretty well defended on the last day of the hearings, day four, where everyone else was talking and not Judge Barrett and the Senators (“What do you think of this law/decision?” “Without a case before me, I cannot think about it in a relevant way to this hearing”) I know she didn’t say that, but that’s what she meant. She has a lot of opinions, a lot – just look at how many things she’s written and how many talks she’s given, for what publications and audiences. A law professor, any professor actually, has a lot to say and will never turn down a chance to say it. But that’s not why she was there in the hearing room. That’s what we all wanted, and that’s why she was there, but that’s not why she was there. It’s complicated.

It’s a bad model, having someone interview for this job the same way you’d interview for anything else. I’d argue this interview is a lot less challenging than any other professional interview out there, particularly jobs that require you to make decisions based on hearing speeches and reading voluminous texts that are interpretations of interpretations.

Anyway the fourth day – lots of conversation about Originalism and it’s value and failings. Great stuff there from Judge Thomas Griffin, who is also a law professor, on the value of originalism for progressive thinkers. His comments seem to fold right into the editorial which suggests, at least how I’m reading it, that originalism means you need to immerse yourself in the arguments of the debates around the Constitution, not what this or that founder believed.

The trouble isn’t having an interpretation or hermeneutic, the trouble is trying to explain to people that context is important and important because it is uncertain, and calls us into account to make sense of it. It calls for an accounting, which is an accounting of us. That’s what should be going on.

I want to make a video about this but haven’t had the time or energy. I’ve just been looking around for my ancient copy of The Federalist Papers which I used to carry around with me for 2 years in High School, just in case I needed it to prove something about some political argument I was having. Anyway, that old book is probably long gone, can’t find it anywhere. I might have to get a new copy which is weird to think about and also kind of fun as it will be time to mark it all up again. Would be a lot better to mark up the old one again and see how I’ve changed. But I can’t expect to still have a paperback from the 1990s around here. Right after I put in the order, I will find it somewhere I bet.

All I’d like to do this week is sit around and listen to music and read the Federalist Papers, but it’s going to be another really busy week.

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates have captured the American imagination on what debate should look like, and I’m really at a loss as to why.

They were for a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois. Most people think they were Presidential debates. Although Stephen Douglas had presidential ambitions, they were never realized.

The Senators at that time were not determined by popular vote. The State Legislature determined the Senators, as the idea at that time was that the Senate represented State interests, and the House represented the people.

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln thought a series of debates would be good self promotion, or promotion for his minority party, the Republicans. Either way Stephen Douglas’s ambitions caused him to accept the series of debates as well. Both agreed the debates would be beneficial for the people of Illinois, and for the country. They assumed they would get national attention, and they were right.

These debates, like any good debates, are a product of local circumstance, context, and controversy. It’s odd, but expected I guess that they would be transformed into a fantasy of universally good debating.

I’m against this idea that they are a universal model, but reflecting on all the discussion about them as a better alternative to the Commission on Presidential Debates got me thinking about what we can learn about good debate from the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Here are a few ideas:

Debating is a performance

Although Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas had no conception of broadcast media, they were keenly aware of the role of print journalism in shaping political views. The debates they offered were not just for the audience attending that particular debate, but for the journalists who would write vivid descriptions of the speeches, gestures, and delivery for their readers miles away.

Debate is not about being right or being true. It’s not about facts. It’s about communicating the reasons why you hold the position you do for the benefit of an audience. Facts and belief can only go so far. The lesson here is that the presentation might be the only thing that will allow your audience to side with you. It provides access to your position in ways that simply reading it won’t. These debaters understood that.

Moderator? What Moderator?

The Lincoln-Douglas debate series had no moderator. The two men worked out their debate schedule in a series of letters between them, both agreeing that the debates would be in the public interest. Although the Illinois Senate race would be determined in the State Legislature, they both thought these debates would help people better understand and articulate their positions on national politics, particularly the question of slavery.

Since the debates would be about singular questions offered by whichever of the two candidates would speak first, the setup was pretty clear. If someone went off the topic, the other could point this out in their response speech. The audience could also cheer, or boo, indicating to the candidate if they had overstepped the bounds of a reasonable response.

What we can learn from this is that the function of the moderator is not to assist in creating a quality debate, but to assist in the creation of an even that looks good for television. Fast paced, moving between different topics, quickly cutting from one individual back to the other, and trying to create sound bites – the mass media’s most profitable product.

The debate moderators are not helping debate, they are helping media business. They are trying to create something exciting and newsworthy. They interrupt and enforce ludicrous time limits where candidates can barely thank the moderator for the question.

Candidates should control the floor when they speak. They all have experience in courts, in legislatures, and in boardrooms. They don’t need a journalist to tell them how to do this. And we don’t need one to help keep the debate on track. All we need is a clear topic that won’t change for 90 mintues.

We Don’t Need Boutique Topics

One of the most frustrating issues I faced when teaching competitive debate was the selection of topics. In high school competition, topics are either annual or change every three months. They are selected by a committee of educators and the staff of the national organization that oversees contest debating, the National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA).

At the university and college level, topics are selected by a committee that is chosen by the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) and the National Debate Tournament (NDT). This committee solicits papers from the membership that argue for a topic area, cite research showing that it is valuable to debate, and suggest some resolution or topic framing ideas. The committee puts the best suggestions to a vote by members who then have a second vote on the wording.

This is all lovely and democratic in appearance, but the frustration here comes from the idea that people will be able to know what a good debate topic is. That it could be engineered in some way to be “good for debate.” The topics that are created are good for engineered, competitive debate. They help corral issues like fairness and bias in the topic, so that competitive winners of debates can be chosen. This preference ruins the ultimate value of debate: Giving us more to speak with one another about.

Debate organizations and professionals craft “boutique” topics in the same way that professional sports draw very careful white lines on a field, and make sure that the ball is inflated and sized to exacting standards. They are interested in the game being fair first, and that leads to a good game. This makes sense if you are trying to determine who is the best at an activity. For debate, they are very good at determining who is best at boutique debating. Debating outside of such landscaping and manicuring, this approach does not work. To truly learn and benefit from debate, it must be a messy combination of what people find controversial and how the debaters take up that controversy for them, not for any set of rules.

Lincoln and Douglas chose topics that were on the top of everyone’s mind, and they did so by drawing directly from the national conversation. They took these issues and broadened them. A good contemporary example of the sort of thing they did would be to take the issue of the COVID pandemic, and instead of debating it directly, in terms of government response, the question could be “Is this how a democracy should handle a pandemic?” or perhaps “The States should determine their own pandemic policy based on Federal government advice.” Something like that would be more in-line with the Lincoln-Douglas debate topics, although since they were given 30 minutes to ask the question, it’s hard for our 21st century minds to understand how that would be possible.

The best topics come right out of the controversies in front of us and need no engineering. They don’t have to be made; they are all around us. They are messy, but that’s a great place to form a strong position on what we should be doing or thinking. National educational debate organizations like CEDA-NDT or the NSDA are not interested in debate, they are interested in creating contests that excite students. What debate wants and needs is secondary. Lincoln and Douglas show us that the best kinds of debate allow the audience to refine their beliefs and then select a winner, not select a winner based on how well they supported a side under a boutique topic crafted by supposed debate experts.

A Mediated Approach is Better than a Media Approach

Contemporary debates are rushed due to the costs of TV and people’s low attention spans. The Commission has fought this problem for it’s entire existence. But it begs the question: Why are these debates televised?

When we look to other organizations that craft and create professional debates, they diversify: The Munk Debates have podcast debates as well as a YouTube presence. So does the TED debates, and Doha. Intelligence Squared pioneered this multi-pronged approach years ago (I happened to appear on one of those and it was quite fun, but I think the link has been lost to time). The Commission on Presidential debates seems clueless in this regard, producing only 3 televised debates every four years.

Lincoln and Douglas can teach us an alternative, and that is to hyper-mediate one event through awareness of the different audiences out there for such an event.

First, there’s the debate audience present and attending the debate itself. Second, there are the newspaper and magazine reporters there covering it. Third, there are the reporters for the party-owned and controlled newspapers, something we don’t talk about enough in American political history.

Lincoln and Douglas were very clever, and made sure to address all three levels of audience at once. This takes a lot of talent and practice, and the two men were obviously aware that how they said particular arguments might be ignored by some journalists as hyperbole, but eaten up by the party presses. Likewise, something of local color and interest for the crowd would be reported in national papers, but maybe not of such interest to the party journalists. And angry aggressive speech would be reported on in mocking tones by the opposite party journalists.

This awareness is a keen recognition of a multilayered audience situation, and that one must mediate one’s speech in order to reach all the audiences appropriately. Today we think of this as modality, as a podcast will be cut and edited differently from a TV broadcast, as will a blog or other print medium. Lincoln and Douglas show us that you can do this by speaking in ways that accommodate a number of different media to get the perspective you want for the audience you want to reach. Instead of letting the media control what the debates look like, let candidates do it by having an engaging event with one another, and allow them to speak in the ways they wish to reach the audiences they wish to reach.

Take Your Time

There are two really excellent books on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates that stand out. One is by Allen Guelzo, the other by David Zarefsky. In the Zarefsky book, he highlights an interesting moment in the debates where Abraham Lincoln is oddly surprised by the question Senator Douglas asks him. He pauses, then informs the audience that he would like to check on a few facts in the town library before he gives an answer. Everyone agrees, and the debate disperses. A few hours later, Lincoln, Douglas, and the crowd re-assemble, and the debate continues, with Lincoln offering his answer.

Everyone is better off with the addition of reflective research and adaptive thinking. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, both candidates were kept on their toes by one another, trying to second guess what their responses might be and changing the questions to try to see if they could force an error. Likewise, each man had to read and keep up with the law, the public opinion, and the courts to keep the debates relevant through research accuracy.

Contrast this to the Commission on Presidential Debates blocking the candidate use of notes or other aids to memory. This leads to both participants practicing repeating stock phrases, campaign trail slogans, and the like. Since things cannot be looked up on a laptop computer or phone, we are just left with assertions from memory from both candidates. Journalists and publications serve as “fact-checkers,” but this doesn’t help improve the quality, or force, of the debate itself. It’s sort of like finding out an important ingredient was missing after you ate a meal – disappointing no matter what.

Instead, let the candidates follow Lincoln’s lead and look things up during the debate. The sign of intelligence is not perfect recall without consulting anything, but instead deferring to research to ensure one has a grounded thought. But the Commission wants a good TV show, and looking smug and not needing notes apparently is what they think we are excited to see. I just wish they would give us what we need instead.

Those are some of the lessons here, but now I’m sort of inspired to go back over my Lincoln-Douglas debate materials and see what else I can find. I might post more about this later, but for now, I really just would like us to reflect on why an obscure set of Senate debates from the 1850s seem so much better than our debates in 2020. What does this say about the direction our political discourse is headed?