Debates: More like superhero movies than intellectual discourse

What was needed from Harris during the presidential debate was loud sentences starting with the word 'You', and finger pointing, says the writer. — AFP

EVEN though I dislike Donald Trump and all he stands for, it's clear:

He is an expert debater.

I'm not comparing him favourably to say, some Ivy League or Oxbridge debater.

I'm saying he understands television and modern political campaigns in a way that Kamala Harris does not fully yet.

The general consensus is Harris outperformed Trump, and this is good news for all. However, I believe there are still interesting and important ways to improve, and lessons to learn.

These lessons are applicable to anyone anywhere interested in the dynamics of political campaigning, and how they are evolving - especially in a world of social media and soundbites.

The first rule that Trump understands innately better than Harris does is: A political campaign is not about policy.

At best, policy counts for about 10% of a campaign.

A political campaign is about theatre.

It is not about proving how you will be better for the country once you are in power.

A few days after the elections are over, very few people will remember or care what you said about policy.

A political campaign is about stirring an individual's emotions to the point where they decide: on election day, I'm going to vote for you.

You can tell from all the things that Harris said that her team prepared to deliver in terms of substance.

There's nothing wrong with substance. Like everyone else, I want good policies.

But a televised political debate today is less about substance. It is more about style.

The number of people who remember what was said, is infinitely lower than the number of people who will remember how it was said, and how that made them feel.

People who are policy nerds, and fancy themselves policy experts and such may be tempted to see such debates as a competition of ideas – some intellectual gladiatorial contest where the best ideas, policy, and articulation win.

I believe that someone who wants to “win” a debate like this should instead see such debates as a superhero movie.

In such a movie, the hero protagonist is basically who the audience sees themselves as – someone relatable who embodies their ideals and aspirations, and who fights for the things that they believe in.

Your job in this debate movie is to firstly, to make it clear that you are the one who is the superhero, while your opponent is the supervillain.

Secondly, you have to play the part, and you have to play it well. You have to look and sound like a hero who is standing up against the bad guy, on behalf of everyone else.

Notably, when standing against Trump – someone who stands in between the bully and the bullied.

You have to look strong, assertive, forceful, confident, and loud. Your words and body language cannot be like so much of the existing dull political white noise - it has to be lightning, with bright lights and explosions just like in the superhero movies.

In the context of Trump versus the relatively unknown Harris, the question was less about policy, and more about: Who comes across as the stronger leader?

Harris spent too much time and energy trying to appear like she's smarter than Trump, and chose all her words carefully to achieve this.

Trump knew all he had to do was appear that he's stronger than Harris - so that he would look more like the hero of this debate movie.

And Trump knew that to demonstrate this, he could lie as much as he wants – as long as he sold it hard enough and often enough to make his self-conviction contagious.

By way of example: I generally believe it is a good idea to make access to abortion in America guaranteed by federal law.

To hear Trump talk about giving the power to the states however, even I briefly started to think: Hey, that sounds reasonable.

Harris two main problems were: Firstly, thinking this debate was about policy. Secondly, appearing too defensive.

She at least once used the term "That's not true" - I don't even remember for what, because that's entirely irrelevant.

Every time you issue a denial, many people who are watching and listening subconsciously feel that what you’re denying is in fact true.

The better term is "You're lying".

It is better because then you are on the attack, not on defense; and it is better because then your opponent is the one forced to issue a denial, in the form of “I’m not lying”, which in turn brings us back to how their denial will send messages on the subconscious level that he is indeed lying.

There are three issues in particular I would say Harris needs to be a lot more directly accusatory, and take her rhetorical energy up many notches on: abortion, crime, and immigration.

On abortion, Harris did a decent job, and was right to cite the example of pregnant women bleeding out in parking lots because of lack of access to proper medical care.

She needs to go further though, and understand that when you’re on television in a setting like that, her job is to convincingly paint Trump - as an individual, not as some abstract policy maker - being directly responsible for that woman in the parking lot.

She should use words like “You made this happen”, “You are the one responsible for her suffering” - emphasising the word “you”, and doing a lot of finger pointing.

This is because she needs to vividly paint (or expose, rather) Trump as the misogynistic, creepy guy who is trying to force his will on women’s bodies.

That is when it becomes visceral, and that is when it becomes extra real for voters.

Trump was on the offensive on the subject of crime. Harris’ response should be too defensive or reliant on statistics that viewers will generally not take the trouble to verify.

Harris used the term “This is so rich” to point out Trump’s hypocrisy on crime, which is a start. But this is nowhere near enough.

Harris needs to accuse Trump, with the same self-conviction he consistently demonstrates, of being a convicted criminal. Again, via loudly using the words “You” and literally pointing fingers.

She should make points like: If you put a criminal in charge of a city, that city is going to be runover by crime. If you put a criminal in charge of the White House, the whole nation is going to be lawless. Simple, visceral.

Harris was right to bring up again the fact that Trump killed the strongest bipartisan bill on tightening immigration control, just for his own selfish political interests. But she did not do it forcefully enough, or repeatedly enough.

At the risk of being repetitive, what was needed was loud sentences starting with the word “You”, and finger pointing.

In fact repetition is another thing that Trump understands better than Harris.

Harris talked as if all she needed to do was to get certain things on the record once.

This is not enough. You need to press your opponent repeatedly again and again, the way Trump repeats his lies about immigration.

You need to repeat points and accusations, and you need to taunt your opponent (especially if your opponent is like Trump) for being too cowardly or too inept to give straight answers.

You should also more frequently keep talking until the moderator has begged you to stop.

I doubt it is important to emphasise that Harris is, in comparison, the adult in the room by being very restrained. Anyone will be able to see that.

The ground she needs to cover is more related to whether she is strong enough, forceful enough, and “superhero” enough to inspire people to get out and vote for her.

Note that the last part of that last sentence is not “enough to be president”. In this game, it is important to note the difference.

There isn’t space in this article to credit all of Harris’ good zingers; suffice it to say, build on those.

One that is worth mentioning is to keep repeating how top military officials have spoken out against him, especially those who served directly under him. And the fact that so many others who worked with him, have openly criticised him.

A last point is to steer away from describing him as a “danger” and lean more towards ridicule. On multiple strategic levels, it is more effective to describe him as a bumbling clown breaking all the china in the store, than as a threat.

Harris was right to press immediately for a second debate, and she should use the word “coward” repeatedly, for as long as Trump refuses a second one.

And if there is a second debate, I think the right advice for Harris is: work on that superhero image and poise. Work on becoming viral lightning.

NATHANIEL TAN is strategic communications consultant. He can be reached at [e-mail]. The views expressed here are solely the writer's own.