: Savages!…I was manipulated!…
I enjoyed last night’s debate far more than the others I’ve seen over the past few months. I’m still trying to figure out why.
I thought the questions were labored. It seemed to me that Peter Jennings was somehow offended that he was sharing the stage with local journalists. He didn’t so much ask questions as deliver mini-sermons with question-like inflections at the end.
Did my enjoyment have something to do with the mood? The candidates resisted attacking each other. I generally think that’s a good thing. Or, did my enjoyment have something to do with the quality of the answers? It seemed to me that all the candidates had moments of power and clarity (yes, even Sharpton and Kucinich).
No. Here’s what I think it was. I was primed by my Contemporary Issues class. My students did an excellent job yesterday of discussing: 1) the rhetorical situation of the Dean concession speech, 2) the rhetorical purpose/effect of the “yeagh!” scream, and 3) how their mediated experiences of the speech differed from the audience and how/why that’s important to our experience of politics.
Yesterday I witnessed people discussing the election in interesting ways. Not pundits. Not journalists. Not politicians. Not C4s. I discussed these things with potential young voters, and that got me excited.
Therefore, I’m finding it exceedingly difficult now to write one of my snarky, experiential analyses.
Here’s what I said in answer to a reader’s questions yesterday about what Dean needed to do in the debate to deflect the interpretations of the scream:
Richard…thanks for the question. I used it in class today. Here’s the consensus according to my students:
1- Go easy on the humor.
2- Turn the emotion around. e.g. “I’m passionate about this campaign. And why shouldn’t I be. I care about what’s happening in this country. And I’m excited to be a part of our democratic process.”
3- Don’t change too much tonight. Let some of that passion show, but go easy on it.I think they did a pretty good job. I’d have to agree.
But I’d add this: It’s exceedingly difficult to wiggle out of these interpretation traps because the press simply views this as part of the Dean master narrative (i.e. the “truth” that he’s angry and emotional).
Give your students all “A’s” because not only were they right but practically predicted the script. As the NY Times reported today:
“He started out as the calm but hoarse physician, cheerfully alluding to his screaming concession speech but quickly changing the subject to why he opposed the Bush tax cuts. His economic lecture . . . was a safe answer that put him back in a familiar role: the outsider willing to stand up to President Bush. This was Dr. Dean as the no-nonsense policy wonk determined to be fiscally responsible.”
My thanks to the class for great answers.
Hey, check this out!
LS301: You guys nailed it! Did you watch the debate? Dean handled himself just as you predicted. Excellent work. Here’s…